NIV, RSV & ASV: The Anti-christ bibles identified by Amazing Discoveries

[ChristianTalk]

Vow but you sound puffed up.

Can you show me Greek text on Luke 3:23?

I am sorry, but I am not trying to be puffed up. I have a better verse for you. Look up Luke 2:48 in the KJV. There is no brackets present there. It states the following:

"And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing." (KJV)

Can you explain this verse please without the brackets?

 

[cronjecj]

I am sorry, but I am not trying to be puffed up. I have a better verse for you. Look up Luke 2:48 in the KJV. There is no brackets present there. It states the following:

"And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy fatherand I have sought thee sorrowing." (KJV)

Can you explain this verse please without the brackets?

i am sorry too.

In that verse Mary spoke unto Jesus Christ when He was only 12 years of age and that was before He was vindicated by the Spirit in Matthew 3:16 on the age of 30. Anyway Mary spoke humanly saying your father and i were looking for you seeing her as an over protective mother of her first born lol

Mary said thy father even though she knew that Jesus's true Father was the Lord.

Personally i do not think it is a mistranslation from the Greek text but it was how Mary spoke unto Him until the age of 30 when He started preaching the word.

 

[distinctiveministry]

There is a lot of talk on here about how the KJV is better because other translations omit references to Christ or in some other way seem to diminish him, but these arguments are based on the assumption that these cases in the KJV aren't actually additions to the text. Comparing English translations to one another and saying that one is better because it has or does not have X is pointless without first determining what the original text said. Of course, in order to resolve that dispute, one must first decide what the original text said- not a small task in itself. There is not a single complete text of the Greek New Testament that is without error, and it is impossible to even establish that a text is completely without error because we lack the autographs necessary for making such an assertion.
Without the autographs there is no rational basis for making the claim that any text or translation is perfect, and only marginal basis for even saying that, between two good translations, one is better than the other.

 

[distinctiveministry]

Why don't you google it for yourself?

Anyone that has God's truth in him seeks understanding and will never compromise truth.

i only recently discovered that the KJV contains the most accurate words of God.

i knew a man that claimed Jesus to be a created being with some authority born of Joseph because of the NIV. and that is a lie from the devil. It's bad to believe a lie.

Satan will do anything in his power to let people believe Jesus is not THE LORD or at least a created being.

Jesus Christ is LORD and the KJV makes this clear more than any other.

I don't google it for myself because I'm not the one making irrational claims that need to be substantiated.

And as I've mentioned in my previous post- it does not matter that the KJV makes it more clear than any other translation that Jesus Christ is Lord unless the Greek originals also did so. I can write a book that makes even STRONGER claims about Jesus than the KJV, but that does not mean it is better or even scripture.

Better still, I could make a translation of the New Testament and decide to strengthen some of the Christ claims by adding words or phrases that assert his divinity and power and sinlessness and so forth. Everything I write could even be TRUE, but it would still not be accurate or scripture.

 

[cronjecj]

I don't google it for myself because I'm not the one making irrational claims that need to be substantiated.

And as I've mentioned in my previous post- it does not matter that the KJV makes it more clear than any other translation that Jesus Christ is Lord unless the Greek originals also did so. I can write a book that makes even STRONGER claims about Jesus than the KJV, but that does not mean it is better or even scripture.

Better still, I could make a translation of the New Testament and decide to strengthen some of the Christ claims by adding words or phrases that assert his divinity and power and sinlessness and so forth. Everything I write could even be TRUE, but it would still not be accurate or scripture.

i see what you mean but that is not the point here, the point is i believe God has preserved His words after generation for ever and those He keeps is pure as it is written,

Psalm 12:6-7
The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

 

[RachelBibleStudent]

There is a lot of talk on here about how the KJV is better because other translations omit references to Christ or in some other way seem to diminish him, but these arguments are based on the assumption that these cases in the KJV aren't actually additions to the text. Comparing English translations to one another and saying that one is better because it has or does not have X is pointless without first determining what the original text said. Of course, in order to resolve that dispute, one must first decide what the original text said- not a small task in itself. There is not a single complete text of the Greek New Testament that is without error, and it is impossible to even establish that a text is completely without error because we lack the autographs necessary for making such an assertion.
Without the autographs there is no rational basis for making the claim that any text or translation is perfect, and only marginal basis for even saying that, between two good translations, one is better than the other.

right and many of the 'ommissions' from the modern bible translations are known to have actually been -additions- to the king james version's base text...for example in 1 john 5:7-8

 

[RachelBibleStudent]

i see what you mean but that is not the point here, the point is i believe God has preserved His words after generation for ever and those He keeps is pure as it is written,

Psalm 12:6-7
The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

just because God preserved his words does not prove that he exclusively preserved them in the king james version

 

[distinctiveministry]

Originally Posted by cronjecj
i see what you mean but that is not the point here, the point is i believe God has preserved His words after generation for ever and those He keeps is pure as it is written,

Psalm 12:6-7
The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.


You believe it even though there is no autograph or errorless manuscript? You are entitled to your faith, but in this case it is not only without reason, but contradictory to reason. Again, you are entitled to that, but you cannot rightly argue that it is based on reason when it is not.

 

[distinctiveministry]

Also, in the case of the verse you cite, for someone to "keep his word" means to be faithful to the promises given, or in the case of Israel, faithful to the covenants. I'm not convinced that this verse means that God will preserve written documentation of His speech.

 

[cronjecj]

just because God preserved his words does not prove that he exclusively preserved them in the king james version

In what version did God preserved His word for today?

 

[cronjecj]

Originally Posted by cronjecj
i see what you mean but that is not the point here, the point is i believe God has preserved His words after generation for ever and those He keeps is pure as it is written,

Psalm 12:6-7
The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.


You believe it even though there is no autograph or errorless manuscript? You are entitled to your faith, but in this case it is not only without reason, but contradictory to reason. Again, you are entitled to that, but you cannot rightly argue that it is based on reason when it is not.

What? i am sure God will keep His purified word written somewhere too, how else will we learn of the infallible word of God?

Shall God allow His children to learn from a book that has errors in it? Unless they don't have a love for truth that is!

 

[RachelBibleStudent]

In what version did God preserved His word for today?

here are a few...

new american standard bible
new king james version
english standard version
holman christian standard bible
new international version
new living translation
contemporary english version

as the king james version translators themselves said...

"we do not deny, nay we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession, (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God."

 

[ChristianTalk]

i am sorry too.

In that verse Mary spoke unto Jesus Christ when He was only 12 years of age and that was before He was vindicated by the Spirit in Matthew 3:16 on the age of 30. Anyway Mary spoke humanly saying your father and i were looking for you seeing her as an over protective mother of her first born lol

Mary said thy father even though she knew that Jesus's true Father was the Lord.

Personally i do not think it is a mistranslation from the Greek text but it was how Mary spoke unto Him until the age of 30 when He started preaching the word.

You just made my point about the other versus that the guy on the video was attacking. You just argued and made my point. The father title is speaking humanly and that's it. It's not taking away from anything. Just like the KJV in Luke say's "his parents" and has Mary calling Joseph his father, that doesn't mean anything but the cultural understanding of the language of the time. Its just an English translation like all the others. Thanks for making my point for me and defending the other translations with that same explanation.

 

[distinctiveministry]

What? i am sure God will keep His purified word written somewhere too, how else will we learn of the infallible word of God?

Shall God allow His children to learn from a book that has errors in it? Unless they don't have a love for truth that is!

God allows billions of people to learn from the book of Mormon, the Koran, and many books of Eastern religions that claim to hold His truth or the truth about Him. There are many people within these religions who would love the truth and earnestly seek it, even if they are presently unable to see it.

Perhaps the bigger issue here is that Protestants are attempting to being reliant entirely on a book that is NOT 100% preserved in its original form, that may contain errors due to omissions, additions, alterations and so forth. The book is not supposed to be a substitute for personal intimacy with God.

Really, just think about it: until a few hundred years ago copies of scripture were not even widely available, and even when they were available they were usually written in a language most of the people did not speak, nor read, and too, most of them could not read ANY language, much less Latin, Greek, or other language common for biblical copies.
Sola scriptura only works when there is widespread literacy and scriptural access.

 

[Warrior777]

God allows billions of people to learn from the book of Mormon, the Koran, and many books of Eastern religions that claim to hold His truth or the truth about Him. There are many people within these religions who would love the truth and earnestly seek it, even if they are presently unable to see it.

Perhaps the bigger issue here is that Protestants are attempting to being reliant entirely on a book that is NOT 100% preserved in its original form, that may contain errors due to omissions, additions, alterations and so forth. The book is not supposed to be a substitute for personal intimacy with God.

Really, just think about it: until a few hundred years ago copies of scripture were not even widely available, and even when they were available they were usually written in a language most of the people did not speak, nor read, and too, most of them could not read ANY language, much less Latin, Greek, or other language common for biblical copies.
Sola scriptura only works when there is widespread literacy and scriptural access.

Good point!

 

[Laodicea]

I am sorry, but I am not trying to be puffed up. I have a better verse for you. Look up Luke 2:48 in the KJV. There is no brackets present there. It states the following:

"And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing." (KJV)

Can you explain this verse please without the brackets?

Why did you leave out verse 49?
Luke 2:49
(49) And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business?

 

[Laodicea]

Wow are you serious? You obviously never studied the manuscripts. There is no brackets in the Greek text. That was added by men in the KJV to try to show it differently. Don't add to the scriptures.

And no, all other translations do not come from the KJV text. I should know because I have been apart of translating from the Greek texts. The KJV is an English translation and that's it. You really have no clue on the transmission of the text in history.

It is true that modern versions do not come from the same source as the KJV. The KJV comes from the textus receptus.

Why did the early churches of the 2 nd and 3rd centuries and all the Protestant Reformers of the
15th, 16th and 17th centuries choose Textus Receptus in preference to the Minority Texts? ​

The answer is because of the following:

• Textus Receptus is based on the vast majority (over 95%) of the 5,300+ Greek manuscripts in existence. That is why it is also called the Majority Text.
• Textus Receptus is not mutilated with deletions, additions and amendments, as is the Minority Text.
• Textus Receptus agrees with the earliest versions of the Bible: Pe****ta (AD150) Old Latin Vulgate (AD157), the Italic Bible (AD157) etc. These Bibles were produced some 200 years before the Minority Texts (like Vatican and Sinai) favored by the Roman Catholic Church.
• Textus Receptus agrees wih the vast majority of the 86,000+ citations from scripture by the early church fathers.
• Textus Receptus is untainted with Egyptian philosophy and unbelief.
• Textus Receptus strongly upholds the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith: the creation account in Genesis, the divinity of Jesus Christ, the virgin birth, the Saviour's miracles, his bodily resurrection, his literal return and the cleansing power of his blood!
• Textus Receptus was (and still is) the enemy of the Roman Catholic Church. This is an important fact to bear in mind.

While modern versions are based on the codex vaticaus and the Codex sinaticus. The modern versions have errors because the source has errors.

 

[Warrior777]

I have a question mainly for the linguist scholars in here:
The exact phrase 'sons of God' appears 5 times in the OT in the KJV. Three of them in Job, that seemingly refer to angels when read in context.
Now the other two are in Gen 6:2+4. At least 6 other bible translations (among the NIV) either translate the phrase 'sons of God' with heavenly beings, or supernatural beings (angels) and in Gen 6 some also indirectly refer to angels by calling the daughters of men either humans or daughters of human beings, making a distinction between those sons of God and daughters of men in a way that one of them is not human.
Now did these translations just clarify the terms and put them in a more modern understandable context or did they totally change the subject at hand, since the KJV does not specify directly who these groups (in Gen 6) are exactly...

I am just talking about these scriptures mentioned and I don't want to have anybody just answer to the possibility of this happening or if they personally believe that this happened or not. I am looking for scriptural proof in the translation of these texts according to this thread. There is already a thread out there that thoroughly discusses the possibilities or not. Keep it on topic please.

 

[ChristianTalk]

It is true that modern versions do not come from the same source as the KJV. The KJV comes from the textus receptus.

Why did the early churches of the 2 nd and 3rd centuries and all the Protestant Reformers of the
15th, 16th and 17th centuries choose Textus Receptus in preference to the Minority Texts?​

The answer is because of the following:

• Textus Receptus is based on the vast majority (over 95%) of the 5,300+ Greek manuscripts in existence. That is why it is also called the Majority Text.
• Textus Receptus is not mutilated with deletions, additions and amendments, as is the Minority Text.
• Textus Receptus agrees with the earliest versions of the Bible: Pe****ta (AD150) Old Latin Vulgate (AD157), the Italic Bible (AD157) etc. These Bibles were produced some 200 years before the Minority Texts (like Vatican and Sinai) favored by the Roman Catholic Church.
• Textus Receptus agrees wih the vast majority of the 86,000+ citations from scripture by the early church fathers.
• Textus Receptus is untainted with Egyptian philosophy and unbelief.
• Textus Receptus strongly upholds the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith: the creation account in Genesis, the divinity of Jesus Christ, the virgin birth, the Saviour's miracles, his bodily resurrection, his literal return and the cleansing power of his blood!
• Textus Receptus was (and still is) the enemy of the Roman Catholic Church. This is an important fact to bear in mind.

While modern versions are based on the codex vaticaus and the Codex sinaticus. The modern versions have errors because the source has errors.

Let me start by saying that the text used before the Textus Receptus was not Byzantine text. They came around the 10th through 15th century. I don't know where you are getting your information but its wrong.

It was the Alexandrian text that was the majority text for the first 1000 years.

The TR was produced by the Roman Catholic Priest Desiderius Erasmus in 1516 (first edition) and it had gone through 2 more editions as well. Lets get the facts straight before making false statements.

 

[ChristianTalk]

I have a question mainly for the linguist scholars in here:
The exact phrase 'sons of God' appears 5 times in the OT in the KJV. Three of them in Job, that seemingly refer to angels when read in context.
Now the other two are in Gen 6:2+4. At least 6 other bible translations (among the NIV) either translate the phrase 'sons of God' with heavenly beings, or supernatural beings (angels) and in Gen 6 some also indirectly refer to angels by calling the daughters of men either humans or daughters of human beings, making a distinction between those sons of God and daughters of men in a way that one of them is not human.
Now did these translations just clarify the terms and put them in a more modern understandable context or did they totally change the subject at hand, since the KJV does not specify directly who these groups (in Gen 6) are exactly...

I am just talking about these scriptures mentioned and I don't want to have anybody just answer to the possibility of this happening or if they personally believe that this happened or not. I am looking for scriptural proof in the translation of these texts according to this thread. There is already a thread out there that thoroughly discusses the possibilities or not. Keep it on topic please.

In the field of Hebrew textual translation they use what is called dynamic equivalence which trys to bring the Hebrew to more modern understanding in English. Its just a method of translation and not a deliberate act of destroying the scripture.

The problem with some of these chats are that the mass majority have never studied Hebrew or Greek and never had to translate them. They have never studied the history of transmission of the texts. They hear what their pastor says or look at some YouTube videos and all of a sudden they are experts. I have spent over 20 years studying the scriptures and have done translations with the Greek and Hebrew texts. The KJV only people have no leg to stand on. They say its all based on faith that the KJV is the perfect word of God.

Dr.G