Think about what I am saying before anyone goes off!!!
Our English Bibles is not the Word of God... It is a translation of the original word of God so are the many other different English translations and German, French, Spanish, Korean, Chinese etc etc they are translations there is only one WORD OF GOD!!! The Hebrew scriptures.
Just like classic books are translated into other languages they are not the original. So of course their will be differences as well as translation bias.
The Bible is still the number 1 selling book in the world, which is great in one sense but in another creates issues as that means $$$$ so sadly rather than accuracy many publishers today print what sells, what is the latest flavor.
Look at the passion translation for goodness sake a popular TRANSLATION among many mega churches. It has the NT, Psalms, Proverbs, Songs of Songs.
What about Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy the prophets. Ah well we can just forget about the whole beginning leave out the creation account, oh we don't need to know about the prophets.
It is an absolute disgrace.
Many many people have been totally deceived. Wake up!!!
Shalom
I wouldn’t go off, but I would feel bit of sorrow a little because a fellow believer is not believing Psalms 12:6-7, Proverbs 30:5-6, 1 Peter 1:23-25, and Matthew 24:35. If we were to read these verses like a child and just believe them plainly, we would conclude that God’s Word exists somewhere on the planet perfectly somewhere in one form or another.
In the Bible: We can see a pattern of God preserving copies of His Word, and not the original autographs.
(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.
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 (i.e. Original Manuscripts Were Perfect Only)” that says that we need to look to the original autograph or manuscript because it is perfect, and the copies are flawed and full of errors is unbiblical - IMHO
(in my humble opinion). 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.
In addition, doctrine that is important has been changed, as well. A simple side by side comparison between the KJB (Textus Receptus) vs. Modern Translations (Alexandria, Egypt Bibles) will tell a person this.
You can check out the changed doctrine
here.
(Note: One doctrine that is falsely taught in certain Modern Bibles is the demi-god Jesus viewpoint in that Jesus is a second created God; See John 1:18. Some Modern bibles say begotten God when it should say begotten Son. In Micah 5:2, it talks about the Messiah and in the KJB it says Jesus is from everlasting but in some Modern bibles it changes this to “distant past” etcetera).
You can check out the changed commands
here.
The devil’s name is placed in Modern Bibles where they do not belong, too.
You can check that out
here.
In addition, Modern Textual Critics (i.e. Bible scholars who followed in the footsteps of Westcott and Hort changing the Bible (or the Received Text or KJB), had lost their voice - which ties into the warning in Revelation 22:18-19 that says not to add or take away from the prophecy of this book (Note: Modern bibles take away and add words even in the book of Revelation). Five scholars lost their voice. A sixth scholar (Don Wilkins) on the John Ankerberg show for a few seconds lost his voice temporarily when basically asked if Textual Critics had lost their voice. The John Ankerberg show re-taped over the scene (for obvious embarrassment) but later decided to admit with Dr. James White in their article that it happened (no doubt because it would blow up in their face if somebody squealed).
In this article on Ankerberg: They are misrepresentative about what happened in that it was a question asked from Gail Riplinger’s book. But the point of the question asked from her book (Which they misrepresent) is that Dr. Wilkins (Who can see laughing because he was re-asked this question after having lost his voice for five seconds from the previous taping).
The View from Marrs: Did Dr. Don Wilkins Really Lose His Voice on a Taping of The John Ankerberg Show on the New Translations? - JA Show Articles
The proof is in this video where you can see Dr. Wilkins smiling when asked if anyone lost his voice. But the article is false in that it says this, I quote:
“Ankerberg’s question was to ask Wilkins about the credibility of Riplinger’s book. So Marrs has distorted the context as well.”
But that’s not what we see in the actual video taped segment here:
Check out the video at the 51 second mark (When Dr. Don Wilkins is asked the question on others losing their voices). Dr. Don Wilkins lost his voice briefly for 5 seconds when asked if Textual Modern scholars lost their voice (but it was taped over and we only see him laughing). For it’s why he laughed when asked a second time (Because they re-taped over the segment where he did lose his voice for 5 seconds). They say in the article that he did not lose his voice but he did for 5 seconds. For 5 seconds he could not speak.