Only total ignorance can possibly excrete nonsense like this. <If a New Testament version has the 'NU' symbols> indicates that 'version' is published by the 'society's' printers/publishers as 'edited'/'written' by its 'translators' WHO, SINCE THEY GREW UP UNDER THE WORDS OF THE KJV, NEVER COULD OR CAN BE AUTHENTIC TRANSLATERS and never in eternity will reach such status as of first time ever, creative, original, genuine, translators, and forever will have to STAY NO MORE AND NO BETTER than meagre interpreters -- MEAGER, POOR, BAD BAD BAD lovers of their own false, novel and in certain cases, STUPID AND TRUTH-DESTRUCTIVE : own ideas no more than ideas their ideas, NOT GOD'S. Implication of the NA Greek NT is a marketing and profiteering stunt. These ‘new translations’ are an ABUSE of the Nestle Aland New Testament for the Society's profits and exhibition of the scholars' PET DOCTRINAL SINS under the umbrella and protection of the 'Dynamic Equivalence Translation' movement under auspices of the Catholic Church during the twentieth century instigated by its satanic fervour against the Commandments of God and Faith in the Divineness of Jesus Christ--and of His Name.
Oldest and Best, Really??
- Thread starter Davy
- 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!
RLT63
Well-Known Member
Interesting articleTo all:
Today’s deception is that the Westcott and Hort text is somehow radically different than the Nestle and Aland NT Greek text.
I know I stated this before, but it needs to be said again (Because apparently it is not being received).
Some try to say that the Modern Bibles are not based on the Westcott and Hort text. Some will say this because our Modern Bibles are based on the Nestle and Aland New Testament Greek text.
But Textual Critic Eldon Jay Epp believes the the Nestle and Alan text is barely different than the Westcott and Hort text.
Here is a quote from Textual Critic Eldon Jay Epp:
“The thing to see is that the text of 100 years ago (i.e., in 1980, the text of 1881, Hort’s compilation) is barely different from the text being published as the 28th edition of Novum Testamentum Graece. To offer up-to-date evidence of this point, I have made a fresh comparison of the 1881 compilation and the current edition of the Nestle-Aland compilation,…”
You can find out Eldon Jay Epp’s compilation study here:
N-A in 2018 and W-H in 1881: How Similar?
www.thetextofthegospels.com
But lets just say the Nestle and Aland is not based on the Westcott and Hort text (Which does not match the evidence we have), the Nestle and Aland text says right in the 27th edition that it was supervised by the Vatican.
So I am not sure how this helps a person defending the Modern Translations (Which was based on the Nestle and Aland supervised by Rome).
The Modern Bibles have been corrupted by Rome.
You can check out page 21 here of the 14 changes in Modern Bibles that favor the Roman Catholic Church.
http://www.keithpiper.org/storage/books/NIV-Omissions-Cimatu-7July2018-pdf.pdf
Re:You can find out Eldon Jay Epp’s compilation study here:
But lets just say the Nestle and Aland is not based on the Westcott and Hort text (Which does not match the evidence we have), the Nestle and Aland text says right in the 27th edition that it was supervised by the Vatican.N-A in 2018 and W-H in 1881: How Similar?
So I am not sure how this helps a person defending the Modern Translations (Which was based on the Nestle and Aland supervised by Rome).
The Modern Bibles have been corrupted by Rome.
You can check out page 21 here of the 14 changes in Modern Bibles that favor the Roman Catholic Church.
<The texts shared by these two editions [N-A in 2018 and W-H in 1881] was adopted internationally by Bible Societies, and following an agreement between the Vatican and the United Bible Societies it has [which one, N-A in 2018 or W-H in 1881?] served as the basis for new translations and for revisions made under their supervision.>
The <agreement between the Vatican and the United Bible Societies> must have been later than N-A 2018 , and W-H 1881 must have come in use by the United Bible Societies no sooner than in 2018. During all the years in between NA 1904 until AFTER 2018 when the ‘agreement’ was reached, the <Westcott and Hort text> has not been ‘the basis for new translations and revisions’, proving twentieth century ‘new translations and revisions’ were not based on <W-H in 1881>. AND SO FAR THIS CENTURY since 2018 WE HAVE NOT SEEN MUCH OF ‘new translations and revisions’, have we? Which by leaving us with only one alternative, proves that most if not all ‘new translations and revisions’ in the 19 hundreds were ALREADY <supervised by the Vatican> and not whatsoever were <based on the Westcott and Hort text>. <text> incidentally is also a semantic flounder because those two chaps never wrote a single <text> although they had much to say about some texts and in certain instances made up their own texts instead of the real manuscript texts incorporated in Nestle Aland like NEVER IN ANY WORK OF Westcott and Hort.
WHAT?! You are saying that <Today’s deception is that the Westcott and Hort text is different than the Nestle and Aland NT Greek text>, IOW YOU'RE SAYING that they are NOT different in any way? - My o my -- they, the one with the other, have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING IN COMMON! In fact the great deception TODAY is that 'new translations and revisions' should be 'based on' both Nestle and W&H.
Brakelite
Well-Known Member
I think it not just sad, but dangerous, that so many otherwise well meaning Christians in the US see a particular political paradigm as the enemy of Christianity. This i believe is a dangerous error, one I also believe has been very well promoted by those with certain agendas to actively destroy protestantism and the KJV as the basis for faith and practise.
It's dangerous not only because it leaves the real enemy unexposed, but also dangerous because it creates the idea that a different political ideology is the Christian answer to it's present troubles.
Robert Gwin
Well-Known Member
Very true he did, and he called Him by name as well Jn 17:6, 26. Unfortunately, your version of the Bible chose not to record that in their version.
Robert Gwin
Well-Known Member
Very good Wrangler, I agree sir. Verse 14 and 15 of Romans 13 goes on to give God's peoples roles in making Him known. Any guess as to why the translators chose to alter God's name instead of translating it as written?
Robert Gwin
Well-Known Member
Hope you are right Jim, wonder why Jesus didn't know that Mat 7:21
Why are you performing works here by bearing testimony sir? You must have some inkling of what our assignment is. But you are in fact correct, you cannot earn it, it is truly a gift, but think on this a bit, you can unearn it.
May I ask you if you believe 2 Thes 1:8,9 is true? If you do, then how does that contradict what you just said sir?
Robert Gwin
Well-Known Member
May I ask your take on Rom 10:13 Ger? Do you think God didn't inspire that to be in His word sir?
Why would Jesus ask Jehovah to care for his disciples when he was no longer with them?Jhn 17:11 - I am no longer in the world, but they are in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, keep them safe in your name that you have given me, so that they may be one just as we are one.
Someone will wonder: what can the Father of Jesus do that he cannot do, to ask him for a favor?
John 14:28 You heard that I said to you, ‘I am going away and I am coming back to you.’ If you loved me, you would rejoice that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I am.
Why does Jesus teach things like that to his disciples?
Last edited:
Wrangler
Well-Known Member
RLT63
Well-Known Member
I was commenting on Jesus using the Father as a term for God. You are bringing up a completely different issue
RLT63
Well-Known Member
Bible Highlighter
Well-Known Member
Modern Translations Are Not Inerrant:
If there is one mistake in God’s Word then it is not His Holy Word. Modern Translations clearly show a lack of their own inerrancy.
(Note: Click on the image chart above to zoom in closer if desired).
The King James Version is accurate in its use of "prophets" in verse two because Mark is referencing more than one prophetic book (Which is Malachi, and Isaiah). In contrast, the NIV offers a reading that is demonstrably wrong. It says in Mark 1:2-3 (NIV), “It is written in Isaiah the prophet: "I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way a voice of one calling in the desert, 'Prepare the way for the Lord, make straight paths for him.'" According to the NIV reading, both quotations come from the book of Isaiah. However, in reality, Mark is quoting from both Malachi 3:1 and Isaiah 40:3. In contrast, the KJV's use of "prophets" is plural thus correctly identifying Mark as quoting from more than one prophet (Compare Malachi 3:1 with the first half of the quote of the prophets words, and then compare Isaiah 40:3 with the second half of the quote of the prophets words). You will see that the Modern Translations are clearly are in error here and the King James Bible is correct instead. Hebrews 3:13, and 2 Samuel 21:19 are other verses that show errors in the Modern Translations compare to the King James, among other verses. This means Modern Translations are not inerrant like the pure Word of God (the KJV).
If there is one mistake in God’s Word then it is not His Holy Word. Modern Translations clearly show a lack of their own inerrancy.
(Note: Click on the image chart above to zoom in closer if desired).
The King James Version is accurate in its use of "prophets" in verse two because Mark is referencing more than one prophetic book (Which is Malachi, and Isaiah). In contrast, the NIV offers a reading that is demonstrably wrong. It says in Mark 1:2-3 (NIV), “It is written in Isaiah the prophet: "I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way a voice of one calling in the desert, 'Prepare the way for the Lord, make straight paths for him.'" According to the NIV reading, both quotations come from the book of Isaiah. However, in reality, Mark is quoting from both Malachi 3:1 and Isaiah 40:3. In contrast, the KJV's use of "prophets" is plural thus correctly identifying Mark as quoting from more than one prophet (Compare Malachi 3:1 with the first half of the quote of the prophets words, and then compare Isaiah 40:3 with the second half of the quote of the prophets words). You will see that the Modern Translations are clearly are in error here and the King James Bible is correct instead. Hebrews 3:13, and 2 Samuel 21:19 are other verses that show errors in the Modern Translations compare to the King James, among other verses. This means Modern Translations are not inerrant like the pure Word of God (the KJV).
Last edited:
Why don't Jesus' followers BELIEVE EXACTLY JUST what HE said to THEM: That He was GOING TO HIS DEATH AND WAS COMING BACK FROM HIS DEATH where He would be with the Father "UNDER HIS WINGS", every inch of the WAY and every second of the TIME with, in, and under HIS PRESENCE (Shekinah/Spirit) there and then "greater than I" because He, Jesus the Son, THEN, and THERE, would be DEAD, the WHILE the Father would be "the SHADDOW OF GOD" IN Whom the Son would FIND SHELTER AND REST, "and the third day RISE".
No, say his followers, that is TOO STRAIGHT-FORWARD, TOO SIMPLE, TOO MUCH OF TABLE TALK, TOO NEARBY. "That cannot be, God cannot die". And they even wrote it down!
Last edited:
Robert Gwin
Well-Known Member
Amen RL!Jhn 17:11 - I am no longer in the world, but they are in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, keep them safe in your name that you have given me, so that they may be one just as we are one.
Bible Highlighter
Well-Known Member
Did I say that they are precisely and exactly the same? No.
A Textual Critic (Who is not KJV Only) says this about the differences between the “Westcott and Hort (1881) text”, vs. the “Nestle and Aland 28th edition text.”
“The thing to see is that the text of 100 years ago (i.e., in 1980, the text of 1881, Hort’s compilation) is barely different from the text being published as the 28th edition of Novum Testamentum Graece.”
Source:
N-A in 2018 and W-H in 1881: How Similar?
Keep in mind that this guy is a Textual Critic and that means he is in your camp and not mine.
This Textual Critic did a study analysis of both texts and he has found they are BARELY different.
So either it was coincidence they are BARELY different or it was intentional that the creators of the Nestle and Aland text used Westcott and Hort’s text to a great degree. Seeing, Westcott and Hort were into Catholicism, and the VATICAN was involved in the supervision of the Nestle and Aland text, I am not chocking it up to coincidence. Rome has an agenda.
Last edited:
You can be right; in fact, spot-on! Now I have not argued against your conclusions - about Roman Catholicism - I SHOWED HOW CORRECT YOU ARE, even more that you realize yourself. I have shown you the cunning of Antichrist HEREIN:Did I say that they are precisely and exactly the same? No.
A Textual Critic (Who is not KJV Only) says this about the differences between the “Westcott and Hort (1881) text”, vs. the “Nestle and Aland 28th edition text.”
“The thing to see is that the text of 100 years ago (i.e., in 1980, the text of 1881, Hort’s compilation) is barely different from the text being published as the 28th edition of Novum Testamentum Graece.”
Source:
N-A in 2018 and W-H in 1881: How Similar?
Keep in mind that this guy is a Textual Critic and that means he is in your camp and not mine.
This Textual Critic did a study analysis of both texts and he has found they are BARELY different.
So either it was coincidence they are BARELY different or it was intentional that the creators of the Nestle and Aland text used Westcott and Hort’s text to a great degree. Seeing, Westcott and Hort were into Catholicism, and the VATICAN was involved in the supervision of the Nestle and Aland text, I am not chocking it up to coincidence. Rome has an agenda.
You are talking of NA Edition 27, or rather <this guy> who <is a Textual Critic> is talking of NA Edition 27 and that means he is in the Antichrist camp which you, FAIL TO SEE. Remember Westcott and Hort were Oxford guys? Roman Catholic OXFORD the 19th century Counter Reformation hub vis a vis Cambridge on the Protestant side? This guy does not compare Nestle's work during his lifetime or his son's lifetime, BUT HE COMPARES THE CATHOLICS' WORK OF 1881 WITH CATHOLICS' WORK OF 2018! Of course their works would be <barely different> so that he and they caught YOU like they catch every poor trusting Protestant! Meanwhile ALL they have been doing was STEALING AND CORRUPTING the authentic work and fruits of Nestle's labours FOR THE PROPAGATION OF THEIR LIES AND FRAUD AGAINST GOD'S WORD IN SCRIPTURE.
Last edited:
Similar threads
