Exposing!! The Corrupt Counterfeit (NIV) Bible, Verses That Have Been Tamped With!!
- Thread starter SpiritDove05
- Start date
-
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.
Well, in the John passage it says the scripture cannot be broken. Is that what you mean?
I don't understand what the ps is referring to in your post.
Ever heard of the "shorter reading is to be preferred" 'principle'?
The 'principle' that 'the shorter reading is to be preferred', has no more foundation that simply someone's idea of 'because we said so'. It is to be rejected as man-made hooplah. There is no logical reason to accept it, and no evidential reason to accept it, and no historical reason to accept it, and no manuscriptural evidence to accept it, there is no scriptural (iow, no thus saith the Lord, or It is written) reason to accept it. Even calling it a 'principle' is purely propagandistic, as if it has some actual weight for validity, in acceptation, when it has no such thing. It belongs right with the false idea that the oldest mss (etc) are the most reliable, most correct, most accurate, most untainted, when age has nothing to do with accuracy, or correctness, or even preserved in its contents.
The 'principle' that 'the shorter reading is to be preferred', has no more foundation that simply someone's idea of 'because we said so'. It is to be rejected as man-made hooplah. There is no logical reason to accept it, and no evidential reason to accept it, and no historical reason to accept it, and no manuscriptural evidence to accept it, there is no scriptural (iow, no thus saith the Lord, or It is written) reason to accept it. Even calling it a 'principle' is purely propagandistic, as if it has some actual weight for validity, in acceptation, when it has no such thing. It belongs right with the false idea that the oldest mss (etc) are the most reliable, most correct, most accurate, most untainted, when age has nothing to do with accuracy, or correctness, or even preserved in its contents.
Yes: someone who sees through your fallacious reasoning to the emptiness behind it.
So, when do we know enough about mss? Is it when we take your position? Yet, because we have studied the mss evidence, we cannot take your position, therefore, we cannot understand how you have taken your position based upon such an statement about learning about the mss, when all such, leads to the position we have taken.
Acts 28:29
Act 28:29 And when he had said these words, the Jews departed, and had great reasoning among themselves.
The NIV and NWT follow the same pattern:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+28:29&version=NIV
https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/study-bible/books/acts/28/#v44028029
The words do not occur in the following corrupted texts:
P74, Aleph (Sinaiticus), A (Alexandrinus), B (Vaticanus), E, Psi, several minuscules, some Italic, Vulgate, Syriac, Ethiopic, and Coptic mss, and the Armenian and Georgian versions. ("...p74 S A B E Psi 048 33 81 1739 two lat earlier vg syr(p,h) cop ..." - http://web.ovu.edu/terry/tc/lay13act.htm )
Here is the extant literature which has the text in it:
"... are found in the majority of all Greek texts, as well as in such ancient versions as the Old Latin copies of ar, c, gig, p, ph, w, the Syriac Peshitta, the Syriac Harclean, Armenian, Ethiopian, and Slavonic ancient versions. ..." - https://brandplucked.webs.com/acts8372829.htm
Additionally:"... Most Greek texts, several ancient versions, and several church Fathers quote this verse (Chrysostom, Euthallus, Cassiodorus, Theophylact) ..." - https://brandplucked.webs.com/acts8372829.htm
Additionally:"... P 614 945 1241 2495 Byz Lect most lat later vg syr(h+) ..." - http://web.ovu.edu/terry/tc/lay13act.htm
Additionally:
"... P
Several minuscules
some Italic mss." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...n_modern_English_translations#(14)_Acts_28:29
God confused people with different languages therefore how can only one biblical translation be the Word of God?
6 And the Lord said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.
7 Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.
8 So the Lord scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city.
9 Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the Lord did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the Lord scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.
It is when we consider the mss, that the position taken against the KJB, is seen as being erroneous.
Romans 16:24
Rom 16:24 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.
The NIV and the NWT follow the same pattern:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+16:24&version=NIV
https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/study-bible/books/romans/16/#v45016024
The words do not occur in the following corrupted texts:
Aleph (Sinaiticus), B (Vaticanus), A (Alexandrinus), C
Here is the vast extant literature which has the text in it:
"... D, E, F, (G*), L,
Psi
Cursives: MAJORITY (including 88, 181, 326, 330, 451, 614, 629, (630), 1241, 1877, 1881, 1984, 1985, 2492, 2495.)
Old Latin: ar, d, dem, (e*), (f*), (g*), gig, (x*); Vulgate: Clementine, tol, harl, demid;
Syriac: Harclean
(Gothic)
Chrysostom, Constantinople, 407.
Euthalius, Sulci, 458.
Theodoret, Cyrus, 466. ..." - When The KJV Departs From The "Majority" Text of Hodge & Farstad, cited by the Corrupt NKJV, by Jack Moorman, page 67
Support for the Doxology being placed at the end of Romans 16:24.
"... P61,
Aleph (Sinaiticus), B (Vaticanus), C, D, D-abs,
5, 81, 88, 256, 263, 296, 365, 436, 623, 630, 1319, 1739, 1838, 1962, 2127, 2464, others.
Old Latin: a, ar, b, d, e, f, gig, x, 2 Vulgate: am, fuld, demid, harl, tol, others.
Syriac: Pes.hitta
Coptic: Sahadic, Bohairic
Ethiopic.
Clement, Alexandria, 215.
Origen, Alexandria, Caesarea, Greek and Latin, 254.
Ambrosiaster, Latin, 354.
... The Latin mss. dol Origen, in his commentary on the Epistle claimed that confusion in the Greek mss. can be traced to the influential heretic, Marcion, who removed chapters 15 and 16 from his edition of Romans. ..." - When The KJV Departs From The "Majority" Text of Hodge & Farstad, cited by the Corrupt NKJV, by Jack Moorman, page 67
Additionally:"... Romans 16:24 is found in the Majority of all remaining manuscripts including D, L, Psi, and it is found in the Old Latin copies ar, d, f, g, mon and o. It is also found in the Syriac Harclean and Peshitta as well as the Slavonic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Coptic Boharic and Georgian ancient versions, though some place it at the end of the chapter. ..." - https://brandplucked.webs.com/romans1624.htm
Ever heard of the argument that if it is not in the 'oldest' mss, that a text or passage is not original?
The idea is not a true idea, and we have to ask who ever 'voted' that the only 'evidence' allowed was manuscriptural (as in from the fragments of dusty archaeological rooms)? There are lectionaries, commentaries, breviaries, personal letters, and all manner of evidence beyond the fragments of actual mss, which also aid in showing the originality of any given text or passage. Even the separated geographical locations in which said material is found, gives aid likewise.
The idea is not a true idea, and we have to ask who ever 'voted' that the only 'evidence' allowed was manuscriptural (as in from the fragments of dusty archaeological rooms)? There are lectionaries, commentaries, breviaries, personal letters, and all manner of evidence beyond the fragments of actual mss, which also aid in showing the originality of any given text or passage. Even the separated geographical locations in which said material is found, gives aid likewise.
If all English translations were in general agreement (as during the Reformation) then the issue would not arise. For example the King James and Geneva Bible are essentially in agreement.
ORIGINAL KING JAMES BIBLE: JOHN 3
14¶ And as Moses lifted vp the serpent in the wildernesse: euen so must the Sonne of man be lifted vp:
15 That whosoeuer beleeueth in him, should not perish, but haue eternall life.
16¶ For God so loued þe world, that he gaue his only begotten Sonne: that whosoeuer beleeueth in him, should not perish, but haue euerlasting life.
17 For God sent not his Sonne into the world to condemne the world: but that the world through him might be saued.
18¶ He that beleeueth on him, is not condemned: but hee that beleeueth not, is condemned already, because hee hath not beleeued in the Name of the onely begotten Sonne of God.
GENEVA BIBLE 1599
14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must that Son of man be lifted up,
15 That whosoever believeth in him, should not perish, but have eternal life.
16 For God so loved the world, that he hath given his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him, should not perish, but have everlasting life.
17 For God sent not his Son into the world, that he should condemn the world, but that the world through him might be saved.
18 He that believeth in him, is not condemned; but he that believeth not, is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the Name of that only begotten Son of God.
However that is not the case with the Reformation bibles vs modern translations. That is because all modern translations are based upon CORRUPTED Hebrew and Greek texts.
You can call corruption any which way you want. But it is still corrupted scripture.
I would think the basis of the Greek text of the JW and the NIV are pretty much the same. The JW's used the Wescott and Hort and the Nestle-Aland had it's root in the W-H Greek. God bless...
https://www.nestle-aland.com/en/history/
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1970927
https://www.nestle-aland.com/en/history/
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1970927
I thank God for that which He has allowed to remain in evidence, though my faith does not rest in that, but in Him:
Colossians 1:2
Col 1:2 To the saints and faithful brethren in Christ which are at Colosse: Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
The NIV and NWT follows the same pattern:
The words do not occur in the following corrupted texts:
B (Vaticanus), D, Dabs, K, L, Psi, al, ar, d, div, e, mon, x, z, Vulgate-pt, pesh, harc, sa, Eth-rom (also see: "... B D K Psi 33 81 1739 1881 most lat earlier vg syr(p,h) cop(south) ..." - http://web.ovu.edu/terry/tc/lay21col.htm )
Here is the vast extant literature which has the text in it:
"... Aleph (Sinaiticus), A, C, F, G, I, (P*)
Cursives: MAJORITY
Old Latin: c, (dem), f, g, Vulgate-pt
Syriac: (Harclean**)
Coptic: (Bohairic)
Armenian, Ethiopic-ppl
Also extant in P46?, 049, 056, 075, 0142, 0150, 0151 ..." - A Closer Look: Early Manuscripts & The A.V.; by Jack Moorman, pages 131
Additionally:
"... S A C G I 104 614 630 1241 2495 Byz Lect three lat later vg cop(north) ..." - http://web.ovu.edu/terry/tc/lay21col.htm
Additionally:"... Ruckman (57) Colossians p470-i, states that B and D (6th cent.) have omitted the words, which are found in all families of manuscripts and in the majority of manuscripts. Berry's Greek text supports this passage. ..." - http://ecclesia.org/truth/manuscript_evidence.html
When you employ a genetic fallacy, your point is invalid. That means it has no validity, no value, no evidentiary weight whatsoever. It's worthless and is no better than had you posted nothing at all.
You have only made assertions, and not provided a shred of evidence.
And yet the essence of Scripture remains the same. In Jesus Christ we have salvation.
No! I am not saying that" it's fairly inconsequential for God to be against someone" because He shows in scripture that He is and can be against someone as He see's fit
There is this doctrinal beliefs out there that says "God will never break a promise" which a false statement. Because except for the promise of Agape Love every single promise God has ever made in scripture had conditions attached to God keeping His promise. This means that when the Israelites came back from scouting the land and became disobedient by becoming doubtful that God would be able to conquer the people's of the land, God took back His promise He made to them when He promised that He would take them to a land of milk and honey.
Exo 3:8 And I am come down to deliver them out of the hand of the Egyptians, and to bring them up out of that land unto a good land and a large, unto a land flowing with milk and honey; unto the place of the Canaanites, and the Hittites, and the Amorites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites.
So by what is said in Exo 3:8 and in Num. 14:34 shows us that God will break a promise He gave us if we don't abide by or keep the conditions put forth by God, we will suffer the breach/breaking of His promise and the punishment for not keeping our end of the condition. In other words all promises except one made by God are a Quid Pro Quo.
You are arguing that it is closer to the truth to say that God BREAKS HIS PROMISES?
The above question is a minipulating and suggestive question designed to trap me. The words"God BREAKS HIS PROMISES" are a distortion of my words and away from the subject matter here.
I never said anything about God breaking His promises in the plural and we are talking about one promise. Not more then one promise as you are implying. Satan is the author of Manipulation's which is also called "Witchcraft" in the Bible.
Don't try to use Manipulation's on me and I won't compare your questions to Satan's craftsmanship.
So Yes, that is excatly what I am saying. The words "Breach of Promise" or "God will break His promise to us" if we are disobedent and do not abide or keep the conditions set forth by God so that He can keep His promise He made to us.
And yes, the words "Breach of Promise" is much closer to the truth of who God is and how He will react to our disobedeince.
Whether or not the Bible was talking to the Jewish people in the Old Testament or not doesn't matter. Because the Word Of God was written for All of us and besides we are all the people of God now and what applies to the Jews of old or the Jews of today always applies to all believers as well Jew or Gentile.
The NIV removes 64,545 words and 45 verses from the bible. In the NIV Matthew 17:21, 18:11 and 23:14 are removed from the NIV according to the NIV translation I researched on the Bible Gateway web site.
Mark 7:16, 9:44&46, 11:26 and 15:28 are missing in the NIV. There are many more verese missing From the Word Of God in the NIV.
Verses still in the NIV but corrupted.
Matthew 19:17 "Why do you ask me about what is good" Jesus replied. There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, keep the commandments. NIV
Mat 19:17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
John 6:47 Very truly I tell you, the one who believes has eternal life. NIV
John 6:47 He that believeth on me hath everlasting life. KJV
1 John 4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God. NIV
1 John 4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
There are many more corrupted verses in the NIV then I have quoted here.
So without question that the NIV is a corrupted version of the Word Of God and all NIV versions should be burned.
Though I would like to see the creators of the NIV and several other abominations like the NIV punished for what they have done, I know they will be punished by the hand of God unless they truly repent in their hearts.
Read it and weep all you NIV defenders.