Exposing!! The Corrupt Counterfeit (NIV) Bible, Verses That Have Been Tamped With!!

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

fredoheaven

Senior Member
Nov 17, 2015
2,650
532
113
Sure!


My understanding of the English of around 1600 is that the word

settled

as it is used here is basically a synonym for the word

preserved.
Ahh and that is your understanding any evidence, they are the same? I have two-volume for The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, and trying to find those two words to be the same yet haven't found. Other thing is that the word "preserve" meaning "keep safe" is a late 14c word not exactly as 1600 while "settled" with "Sense of "establish a permanent residence" first recorded 1620s. Far better is that could you link me found anything under the google for sure about the word being synonym. Thanks.

https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=preserve
https://www.etymonline.com/word/settle
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
12,872
6,930
113
What came first? God or the bible? Did you know that the bible's cover has never since its printing bore the title, God's Words. Only, Holy Bible. And then the hundreds of versions of God's words come afterward. And who's responsible for publishing those versions of God's eternal words?
That's nerve if you ask me. God's words, the new version. Again, and again, and again. But God does not change. Why then are there so many different changes to his words and who is responsible for that?

I believe I can believe in God and not believe in the bible. Even the bible tells me this. I was just telling someone else this. Paul said that unbelievers have no excuse to not believe in God. Because God is everywhere. Here, I looked it up for you.
Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature-have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

We're told to pray to God and God will answer. Why read what we're suppose to believe according to what we're allowed to read so as to then come to believe in that. Is that God? Or is that man and his latest version. This discussion and the claim about that NIV version should make you think.

We pray to God and God answers. God is everywhere we look because everything is made by God and can only be created to be seen from that source. Why read what some version of God's message tells you to believe? Especially when it can be really wrong and tampered with, as this discussion claims.
Why not pray to God and have God lead you himself? He is alive inside every Christian, right? What's he doing there? Taking a nap? Or does he speak to you, lead you in the way you should go? Why do you need someone else and their latest version built from what the first writers wanted to make the world believe and behave like?

The apostles brought the gospel to people by word of mouth. They didn't have a bible. There wasn't one for many hundreds of years after they were all dead. And they were all illiterate, those that were with Jesus when he was here. Except maybe Matthew because he was a tax collector. And John, who wrote Revelation. But the rest were illiterate. And the gospel books aren't written by the apostles anyway. They're anonymous writings.

Put it this way. Jesus is suppose to be the prince of peace as Messiah. One of the reasons the Jews don't believe Jesus was their Messiah is because their writings told them that when Messiah arrived he would bring world peace.
There has never been world peace since Jesus. In fact, there have been holy wars dedicated to the name of God. But no peace.

Hell, even on this site you all aren't at peace. I go through here and read the way you all talk to each other and the things you say, and the names you call each other. And you're all doing this while you're defending Jesus teachings to one another. Only how you do it makes it not anything but offending Jesus by offending one another.

You should see yourselves and how it looks to a new person here. ""God is love!"" How you all talk to each other? Can't tell.
That's a very long non-answer, sadly.
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
12,872
6,930
113
Umm, alright, that's something to do with the original language only and the typical irrelevance of translations. Well, like it or not, that mathematical formula happens by God design in the KJV.
Which formula, specifically?
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
12,872
6,930
113
"if you have not already, you will find that most KJV-only proponents treat the the KJV as the standard to which all others should be compared. That is why you see so many posts here claiming that the NIV "removes" or "changes" this verse or that word. It's circular reasoning (also very common among KJV-o's) and has absolutely no validity. "

IMO, that's sound too old to be true. Omissions or alterations on most "modern" English bibles are prevalent.
You're committing the same error here, assuming that the KJV is correct and comparing the modern translations to it. So, it's not "old" at all, other than that it has been happening for a long time.
 

fredoheaven

Senior Member
Nov 17, 2015
2,650
532
113
You're committing the same error here, assuming that the KJV is correct and comparing the modern translations to it. So, it's not "old" at all, other than that it has been happening for a long time.
So you are saying that ommision/alteration with most of the "modern" English translations presented with mass mss. evidences has been happening for a long long period of time reflecting the error "Yea God hath said?".
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
12,872
6,930
113
So you are saying that ommision/alteration with most of the "modern" English translations presented with mass mss. evidences has been happening for a long long period of time reflecting the error "Yea God hath said?".
If you're going to twist my words and play games, I'm not going to bother answering.
 

Dan_473

Senior Member
Mar 11, 2014
7,989
890
113
Ahh and that is your understanding any evidence, they are the same?

It is not my understanding of any evidence, but of the evidence that I have seen so far, yes.


I have two-volume for The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, ]and trying to find those two words to be the same yet haven't found. Other thing is that the word "preserve" meaning "keep safe" is a late 14c word not exactly as 1600 while "settled" with "Sense of "establish a permanent residence" first recorded 1620s. Far better is that could you link me found anything under the google for sure about the word being synonym. Thanks.

We may wish to see how it was used around the time the KJV was being translated.


https://www.sparknotes.com/nofear/shakespeare/macbeth/page_46/


Macbeth says,

"I am settled, and bend up

Each corporal agent to this terrible feat.


I think what Macbeth is saying is that he's not going to change his mind on the matter.


Is God's word also not subject to change?

Yes.

Where?

In heaven.
 

Brandnewday

Active member
Mar 5, 2020
445
117
43
That's a very long non-answer, sadly.
You are precisely what I was talking about as one who gives a really poor example of what a Christian is suppose to be.
Sadly, that's your problem. You don't like what was said, can't comprehend it, that's too bad.
 

Dan_473

Senior Member
Mar 11, 2014
7,989
890
113

Brandnewday

Active member
Mar 5, 2020
445
117
43
Hi Brandnewday,

I think what you're seeing there is just the nature of the internet. Granted, there's a lot of impoliteness on here.

But compared to my experience on atheist forums discussing religious topics, this is basically a tea party!
Odd isn't it? I've visited those sites too. Atheists act the ass about the religious and religion and yet in their own frame of community what is the number one topic they discuss? Religion and the religious.
They hate people who believe. That's their bottom line.
I think the fools that write books as atheists are a riot. They think they're higher minded than a believer. They write more than one book, with more than one page in it so as to insist they can prove their negative the more they talk. God isn't there! Here, read these 350 pages so you'll come to realize that.
If it isn't there, what is there to talk about?
Hatred for people who believe something is there. That's what.
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
12,872
6,930
113
You are precisely what I was talking about as one who gives a really poor example of what a Christian is suppose to be.
Sadly, that's your problem. You don't like what was said, can't comprehend it, that's too bad.
Your insults only reflect on you.
 

WithinReason

Active member
Feb 21, 2020
596
63
28
You are citing Cyprian? Do you consider him a person worth listening to?
Cyprian is cited as one who cited the text in consideration. What Cyprian taught about said verse or other verses is irrelevant. The evidence shows that the verse existed in Cyprian's time as exists in the KJB. I do not cite Cyprian for his theology, but for the relevance of the citation from scripture that he had available to him, as others.
 

Dan_473

Senior Member
Mar 11, 2014
7,989
890
113
Cyprian is cited as one who cited the text in consideration. What Cyprian taught about said verse or other verses is irrelevant. The evidence shows that the verse existed in Cyprian's time as exists in the KJB. I do not cite Cyprian for his theology, but for the relevance of the citation from scripture that he had available to him, as others.
I see.
The logic is that if Cyprian cited it, then it is scripture. Is that correct?

And other ancient writers? If they cite something, then it is scripture?
 

WithinReason

Active member
Feb 21, 2020
596
63
28
And in the beginning of the apostles teaching the gospel it was word of mouth. Nothing written down about that for many years.
The Apostles preached from the word of God (OT), even from Acts at Pentecost. There were many scribes that recorded what they said on various occasions, both amongst themselves and outside of themselves.

Mat_21:42 Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?

Mat_22:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.

Luk 4:16 And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read.
Luk 4:17 And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written,
Luk 4:18 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,
Luk 4:19 To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.
Luk 4:20 And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him.
Luk 4:21 And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears.

Luk_24:27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

Luk_24:32 And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?

Luk_24:45 Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,

Joh_5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

Act_1:16 Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus.

Act 2:16 But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel;

Act 2:25 For David speaketh concerning him, I foresaw the Lord always before my face, for he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved:

Act_8:32 The place of the scripture which he read was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth:

Act_8:35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.

Act_17:2 And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,

Act_17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

Act_18:24 And a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, and mighty in the scriptures, came to Ephesus.

Rom_4:3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.

Rom_9:17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.

Rom_10:11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

Rom_11:2 God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel, saying,

Rom_15:4 For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.

Rom_16:26 But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:

1Co_15:3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

1Co_15:4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

Gal_3:8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.

Gal_3:22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.

Gal_4:30 Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.

1Ti_5:18 For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward.

2Ti_3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

2Ti_3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Jas_2:8 If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well:

Jas_2:23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.

Jas_4:5 Do ye think that the scripture saith in vain, The spirit that dwelleth in us lusteth to envy?

1Pe_1:16 Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy.

1Pe_2:6 Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.

2Pe_1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

2Pe_3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

Mar_12:32 And the scribe said unto him, Well, Master, thou hast said the truth: for there is one God; and there is none other but he:

Act_4:5 And it came to pass on the morrow, that their rulers, and elders, and scribes,

Act_6:12 And they stirred up the people, and the elders, and the scribes, and came upon him, and caught him, and brought him to the council,

Act_23:9 And there arose a great cry: and the scribes that were of the Pharisees' part arose, and strove, saying, We find no evil in this man: but if a spirit or an angel hath spoken to him, let us not fight against God.
 

WithinReason

Active member
Feb 21, 2020
596
63
28
I see.
The logic is that if Cyprian cited it, then it is scripture. Is that correct?
No. Not at all. Not what I said. I am beginning to think you are purposefully being obtuse, but I still have hope that you are not.

Cyprian cited the scripture in question, which means that he had access to mss that had the citation as we have it in the KJB. This would go also for Lectionaries, Breviaries, personal letters, etc written at that time.

Cyprian could have cited pagan authors as well, but that doesn't make them scripture. What it would show, is that what he cited of those pagan authors, like the scripture citations, is that he had access to the pagan's literature, citing it for what they stated in that literature.

It would be akin to finding an old letter from King James, which cited an AV1611 text in it to him for a birthday, or some other function. What the letter would show, is that the text cited in said letter, was reflective of the text available in his time. This is the same with Cyprian or any other. It would demonstrate the reading as we have in the KJB is at least as old as Cyprian, etc.
 

Nehemiah6

Senior Member
Jul 18, 2017
10,582
4,063
113
Cyprian is cited as one who cited the text in consideration. What Cyprian taught about said verse or other verses is irrelevant.
And this would apply to all the Early Church Fathers. They all may not have had sound doctrine, but the only thing which is relevant in "Patristic Quotations" (a major source of confirmation for the traditional or Received Text) is what was quoted. Dean John William Burgon personally researched all the Patristic Quotations and determined that the majority supported the TR. He also personally research all the Lectionaries (lesson-books) of the Greek Orthodox Church, and arrived at the same conclusion.

Cyprian quoted 1 John 5:7, but there were many others who were also familiar with this verse and quoted it. We may not know why it is absent from the majority of manuscripts, but that it is genuine Scripture is borne out by quite a few sources. The Council of Carthage had 400 African bishops who all agreed that the Johannine Comma (1 John 5:7) was Scripture, and this is what their spokesman Eugenius said:
“. . .and in order that we may teach until now, more clearly than light, that the Holy Spirit is now one divinity with the Father and the Son, it is proved by the evangelist John, for he says, 'there are three which bear testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one.

The real issue which Christians should focus on is why are the critics and the modern bibles so anxious to prove that this is not Scripture? Both the internal and external evidence confirm that it is Scripture, but only the KJV has this verse. All the more reason to stick with the Authorized Version.
 

Dan_473

Senior Member
Mar 11, 2014
7,989
890
113
No. Not at all. Not what I said. I am beginning to think you are purposefully being obtuse, but I still have hope that you are not.

Cyprian cited the scripture in question, which means that he had access to mss that had the citation as we have it in the KJB. This would go also for Lectionaries, Breviaries, personal letters, etc written at that time.

Cyprian could have cited pagan authors as well, but that doesn't make them scripture. What it would show, is that what he cited of those pagan authors, like the scripture citations, is that he had access to the pagan's literature, citing it for what they stated in that literature.

It would be akin to finding an old letter from King James, which cited an AV1611 text in it to him for a birthday, or some other function. What the letter would show, is that the text cited in said letter, was reflective of the text available in his time. This is the same with Cyprian or any other. It would demonstrate the reading as we have in the KJB is at least as old as Cyprian, etc.
No, I'm not being obtuse, just following out what you are saying.

A lot of people quote the early church fathers without realizing other things that they said.

So if 1 John 5:7 was added, it was added before the time of Cyprian. Yes?