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

[Sackcloth-N-Ashes]

Easy boy...

You guys do!

 

[posthuman]

So you believe God breaks His promises before the wandering?
Yes that is right.

@John146 i know it is very important to you, that as you have said, if even a word of the scripture is cast in doubt, then faith is at jeopardy.

i am wondering what you make of this fellow, who casts the faithfulness of God into question?

it seems he would rather call God a liar - a breaker of His own promises and word - than consider that a single translated word in the kjv is not optimal.

i find it fascinating!

 

[Sackcloth-N-Ashes]

The king of Babylon is the morning star?

Take up this taunt against the king of Babylon, that is the context of that passage.

 

[WithinReason]

That is TOTALLY, TOTALLY FALSE.

No more than 10% of the NT quotes correspond to the LXX, with the caveat that even there the verses have somehow been corrupted. I have personally examined this claim, and it is totally false.

The Septuagint is a very corrupt Greek translation of the Old Testament, which also includes all the apocryphal books.

Yes, let's consider so-called septuaginta:

Septuaginta [LXX's] as we presently know them, appears first in the writings of Origen [Hexapla] at near the end of the 2nd century AD, and the mention by the so-called "Letter of Aristeas", based on an unfounded and mostly discredited "legend", is seriously problematic.

​

"... Most of these fables focus on an infamous “book” 14 called the “Letter of Aristeas” 15 (hereafter called the Letter) and the alleged claims of the Letter’s documentation by authors who wrote before the first coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and in the first few centuries following His first sojourn on earth. 16 The only extant Letter is dated from the eleventh century. In addition, there is no pre-Christian Greek translation of the He-brew Old Testament text, which the Letter alleges, that has been found, in-cluding the texts among the Dead Sea Scrolls. ..." - http://www.theoldpathspublications.com/Downloads/Free/The Septuagint ebook.pdf​

"... the story of Aristeas appears comparatively rational. Yet it has long been recognized that much of it is unhistorical, in particular the professed date and nationality of the writer. Its claims to authenticity were demolished by Dr. Hody two centuries ago (De bibliorum textibus originalibus, Oxon., 1705) ..." - http://www.bible-researcher.com/isbelxx01.html​

De bibliorum textibus originalibus - https://archive.org/stream/bub_gb_Lq6h8A9RvfwC#page/n15/mode/2up

Other sources, identifying the same - http://www.scionofzion.com/septuagint.htm

"... Roman Catholics use the idea that Christ quoted the Septuagint to justly include the Apocrypha in their Bibles. ... Since no Hebrew Old Testament ever included the books of the Apocrypha, the Septuagint is the only source the Catholics have for justifying their canon. Many Reformers and Lutherans wrote at great length refuting the validity of the Septuagint. ..." - http://www.wcbible.org/documents/septuagint.pdf

"... [Page 46] Proponents of the invisible LXX will try to claim that Origen didn't translate the Hebrew into Greek, but only copied the LXX into the second column of his Hexapla. Can this argument be correct? No. If it were, then that would mean that those astute 72 Jewish scholars added the Apocryphal books to their work before they were ever written. (!) Or else, Origen took the liberty to add these spurious writings to God's Holy Word (Rev. 22:18). ...

... Is there ANY Greek manuscript of the Old Testament written BEFORE the time of Christ? Yes. There is one minute scrap dated at 150 BC, the Ryland's Papyrus, #458. It contains Deuteronomy chapters 23-28. No more. No less. If fact, it may be the existence of this fragment that led Eucebius and Philo to assume that the entire Pentatuech had been translated by some scribe in an effort to interest Gentiles in the history of the Jews. ... [page 46]

... [Page 47] If there was an Aristeas, he was faced with two insurmountable problems.

First, how did he ever locate the twelve tribes in order to pick his six representative scholars from each. Having been thoroughly scattered by their many defeats and captivities, the tribal lines of the 12 tribes had long since dissolved into virtual non-existence. It was impossible for anyone to distinctly identify the 12 individual tribes.

Secondly, if the 12 tribes had been identified, they would not have undertaken such a translation for two compelling reasons.

(1) Every Jew knew that the official caretaker of Scripture was the tribe of Levi as evidenced in Deuteronomy 17:18, 31:25,26 and Malachi 2:7. Thus, NO Jew of any of the eleven other tribes would dare to join such a forbidden enterprise. ..." - The Answer Book, By Sam Gipp, Page 46-47, selected portions, emphasis [bold] in original.​

​

One may also seek to read further research in,

The Mythological Septuagint [PDF]

Finally:

"... 1 Jones, The Septuagint: A Critical Analysis, op. cit., pp. 10–54. The reader should, in all fairness, be apprised of the fact that very nearly all references in the literature which allude to the Septuagint in fact pertain to Origen's 5th column. That is, the real LXX from all citation evidence as to N.T. references – indeed, for all practical purposes – the Septuagint that we actually "see" and "use" is found to actually be only two manuscripts, Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus a. This is especially true of Vaticanus. Although this fact is difficult to ferret out from among the vast amount of literature on the subject, it may be verified by numerous sources. Among them, the reader is directed to page 1259 in The New Bible Dictionary op. cit., (Texts-Versions) where D.W. Gooding admits this when he relates that the LXX of Jer.38:40 (Jer.31:40 in the MT) as shown in figure 214 has been taken from the Codex Sinaiticus. Thomas Hartwell Horne is even more direct in An Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures, 9th ed., Vol. II, (London, Eng.: Spottiswoode and Shaw, 1846), fn. 1. p. 282 and fn. 3 p. 288. It has been established that both were produced from Origen's 5th column. Thus, the Septuagint which we actually utilize in practical outworking, the LXX which is cited almost ninety percent of the time, is actually the LXX that was written more than 250 years after the completion of the New Testament canon – and by a "Catholicized Jehovah's Witness" at that! Moreover, it must be seen that the testimony of these two corrupted manuscripts is almost solely responsible for the errors being foisted upon the Holy Scriptures in both Testaments by modern critics! - Footnote 1, Which Version?, by Floyd Nolen Jones, 20th edition page 129 [PDF]​

 

[WithinReason]

Take up this taunt against the king of Babylon, that is the context of that passage.

Satan was the actual 'king of Babylon'. Nebuchadnezzar, at the time, was merely the steward.

 

[WithinReason]

I had a different experience, it looked to me like most of the old testament quotes in the New testament were taken from the lxx.

It's actually that so-called septuaginta copied from the NT, and placed it in their OT sections. You have it reversed, see - https://christianchat.com/bible-dis...-been-tamped-with.190967/page-15#post-4198023

 

[John146]

@John146 i know it is very important to you, that as you have said, if even a word of the scripture is cast in doubt, then faith is at jeopardy.

i am wondering what you make of this fellow, who casts the faithfulness of God into question?

it seems he would rather call God a liar - a breaker of His own promises and word - than consider that a single translated word in the kjv is not optimal.

i find it fascinating!

I honestly have not studied that passage. My first question would be, was there a condition to the promise? A “breach” usually means there are conditions on each side.

 

[WithinReason]

I believe I responded that I wasn't sure what you meant. Do you wish to explain further?

God's word is clear. How shall speaking in my own words clarify clearer than what God already said? It's in English, yes?

Psa_18:30 As for God, his way is perfect: the word of the LORD is tried: he is a buckler to all those that trust in him.​

​

Psa_33:4 For the word of the LORD is right; and all his works are done in truth.​

​

Isa_28:13 But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.​

​

Notice:

Joh_7:17 If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.​

​

Joh_6:45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.​

​

Jas_1:5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.​

 

[Nehemiah6]

So. You say 10% were quotes from it, are you saying those quotes that do correspond are suspect?

Not *suspect* but mutilated. Here is an example:

KJV Eph 6:2,3 Honour thy father and mother; (which is the first commandment with promise) That it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth.

KJV Ex 20:12
Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.

Brenton's
Honour thy father and thy mother, [that it may be well with thee]*, and that thou mayest live long [on the good land]* , which the Lord thy God gives to thee.

* Clauses in red added to the Masoretic text, even though "that it may be well with thee" is quoted in the NT.

 

[WithinReason]

So my advice is to learn about manuscripts.

Now to a major test:

1 John 5:7-8

​

1Jn 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.​

1Jn 5:8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.​

The NIV and NWT follow the same spirit:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+John+5:7&version=NIV

https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/study-bible/books/1-john/5/

The words do not occur in the following corrupted texts:

Aleph (Sinaiticus), A (Alexandrinus), B (Vaticanus), K, L, P, Psi, 048, 049, 056, 0142, MAJORITY, Vulgate-pt, Syriac: Pes.hitta, Harclean, Coptic, (Sahidic), Bohairic, Armenian, Ethiopic (see also "S A B K P Psi 048 33 81 104 614 630 945 1241 1739 1881 2495 Byz Lect one lat earlier vg syr(p,h) cop" - http://web.ovu.edu/terry/tc/lay281jn.htm )​

Here is the vast extant literature which has the text in it:

"... Cursives: pc (9 cited in our other Digest)​

Old Latin: c, dem, div, l, m, p, q, r, Vulgate​

​

... the loose ends will not join up grammatically. ... see KJVMT p 115. ..." - A Closer Look: Early Manuscripts & The A.V.; by Jack Moorman, pages 80​

Additionally:

"... CYPRIAN, Treatises (I 5:423), "and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, 'And these three are one'" ..." - Early Church Fathers And The Authorized Version, by Jack Moorman, page 60​

Additionally:

"... 61 88margin 221margin 429margin 629 636margin 918 2318 most lat later vg ..." - http://web.ovu.edu/terry/tc/lay281jn.htm​

Additionally:

"... it is found in Codex 61 of the 15-16th century, kept in Dublin and known as the Montfort manuscript, Codex Ravianus (Wizanburgensis) of the 8th century and in the margins of 88 and 629.​

​

The main authorities for the passage are the Old Latin text of the 2nd century, including manuscript r (5/6th cent.) and the "Speculum," a treatise containing the Old Latin text, and several fathers. Fuller (4) p 213, citing Wilkinson, states that the passage was found in the Old Latin Bibles of the Waldenses, whose text pre-dated Jerome's Vulgate. See also Ray (15) p 98, who states that this "Italic" Bible dates from 157 AD. The Old Latin text carried sufficient weight to influence the later copies of the Vulgate, most of which from 800 AD onward incorporated the passage.​

​

The fathers who cite the passage are Tertullian (2nd cent.), Cyprian (250 AD), Priscillian (385 AD), Idacius Clatus (385 AD), several African writers of the 5th century and Cassiodorus (480-570 AD).​

​

The combined influence of these authorities, together with grammatical difficulties which arise if the Comma is omitted, was sufficient to ensure its place in most editions of the Textus Receptus-see Berry's text- where it undoubtedly belongs.​

​

See Hills (3) p 209, (38) p 210, the TBS (58) "Notes on the Vindication of I John 5:7" and Ruckman (2) p 128-9, (31) p 334. The omission of the Comma from the majority of the manuscripts most likely stems from the influence of Origen and some of his supporters, who did not accept the doctrine of the Trinity. This text is also discussed at length in Part 3. ..." - http://ecclesia.org/truth/manuscript_evidence.html​

Additionally:

"... Here is just a partial list of those who contended for the authenticity of this verse.​

​

Cyprian - 250 AD, Athanasius 350 A.D., Priscillian -385 AD, Jerome 420 AD, Fulgentius (late 5th century), Cassiodorus, Isidore of Seville, Jaqub of Edessa, Thomas Aquinas, John Wycliffe, Desiderus Erasmus, Stephanus, Lopez de Zuniga, John Calvin, Theodore Beza, Cipriano de Valera, John Owen, Francis Turretin, John Wesley, John Gill, Matthew Henry, Andrew Fuller, Luis Gaussen, Frederick Nolan, Robert L. Dabney, Thomas Strouse, Floyd Jones, Peter Ruckman, George Ricker Berry, Edward F. Hills, David Otis Fuller, Thomas Holland, Michael Maynard and Donald A. Waite. ...​

​

... It should also be noted that Michael Maynard significantly points out that there are only 5 remaining Greek manuscripts that even contain the epistle of 1 John in whole or in part that date from the 7th century or before. That is a whole lot of time to have past by with only 5 partial Greek witnesses that remain today that were written within the first 700 years of Christianity.​

​

And among these 5 early manuscripts only 2 of them agree with each other in 1 John 5:6-8. Sinaiticus does not agree with Vaticanus, or Alexandrinus or with 0296. Sinaiticus and A both say "by water and blood AND SPIRIT" in verse 6 instead of "by water and by blood". Then Alexandrinus "not by water only but by water AND THE SPIRIT" instead of "not by water only, but by water and the blood" and 0296 omits the verb "are" (εισιν) in verse 7 and has the unique word order of "by water AND SPIRIT and blood" in verse six. ...​

​

... It is found in several Greek texts - Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, Elziever, Scrivener and Modern Greek Bible; it is quoted by several church fathers as Cyprian 250 AD, Athanasius 350 A.D., Priscillian -380 AD, Varimadum 380 A.D., Jerome 420 AD, Victor Vitensis 430 A.D., Fulgentius (late 5th century), Cassiodorus 580 A.D, and is found in many ancient versions of the Bible including the Old Latin, and is found in some copies of the Syriac, Armenian, Georgian and Slavonic ancient versions.​

​

... It is contained in 629 (fourteenth century), 61 (sixteenth century), 918 (sixteenth century), 2473 (seventeenth century), and 2318 (eighteenth century). It is also in the margins of 221 (tenth century), 635 (eleventh century), 88 (twelveth century), 429 (fourteenth century), and 636 (fifteenth century).​

​

It was part of the text of the Old Latin Bible that was translated in the second century, as it witnessed by a remaining copy that we have today. It is found in "r", a 5th century Old Latin manuscript.​

​

JEROME tells us that certain Arian scribes were removing this section of Scripture from the Greek manuscripts.​

​

Even more to the point is the testimony of Jerome on this matter. Jerome was commissioned by Damasus, the bishop of Rome, to prepare a standard Latin translation of the Holy Scriptures to replace the former Latin translations which had grown in multiplicity by the late 4th century. Jerome did this, utilizing the Greek as his source for revision of the Latin New Testament for his Vulgate.14 At one point in his work, JEROME NOTED THAT THE TRINITARIAN READING OF I John 5:7 WAS BEING REMOVED FROM GREEK MANUSCRIPTS WHICH HE HAD COME ACROSS, a point which he specifically mentions. Speaking of the testimony of these verses he writes,​

​

"Just as these are properly understood and so translated faithfully by interpreters into Latin without leaving ambiguity for the readers nor [allowing] the variety of genres to conflict, especially in that text where we read the unity of the trinity is placed in the first letter of John, where MUCH ERROR HAS OCCURRED AT THE HANDS OF UNFAITHFUL TRANSLATORS CONTRARY TO THE TRUTH OF FAITH, WHO HAVE KEPT JUST THE THREE WORDS WATER, BLOOD AND SPIRIT IN THIS EDITON OMITTING MENTION OF FATHER, WORD AND SPIRIT in which especially the catholic faith is strengthened and the unity of substance of Father, Son and Holy Spirit is attested."​

​

“Thus, we see that JEROME SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED THAT THIS VERSE WAS BEING REMOVED FROM GREEK MANUSCRIPTS IN HIS DAY. Logically, we can suppose that for him to recognize the absence of this verse as an omission from the Greek texts, he must have been aware of Greek manuscripts which contained the Comma in the time of his preparation of the Vulgate for the general epistles (395-400 AD), a time much earlier than is suggested by the dating of currently known Comma-containing Greek mss.” ..." - https://brandplucked.webs.com/1john57.htm​

​

More in a moment.

 

[Dino246]

The NIV and NWT follow the same spirit:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+John+5:7&version=NIV

https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/study-bible/books/1-john/5/

The words do not occur in the following corrupted texts:

Fallacy: poisoning the well.

AGAIN.

 

[Ahwatukee]

And how do you determine which words to go with? Notice, it’s you who is determining.

Hello John146!

I didn't determine anything. I just stated that different manuscripts were used for the different translations, such as the Dead Sea Scrolls found in the caves of Qumran first discovered in 1947. However, those differences don't interfere with my knowledge of Christ crucified, buried and resurrected. So, I'm well aware of the those differences and keep note of them.

 

[posthuman]

I honestly have not studied that passage. My first question would be, was there a condition to the promise? A “breach” usually means there are conditions on each side.

i think this guy should be looking into how the passage should be interpreted rather than how to justify God being unfaithful to His own word.

the Israelites learned what it is like to breach the promise of God. they did not learn what it is like when God breaks His own promise: that is impossible:

God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that He should repent: ​

hath He said, and shall He not do it? or hath He spoken, and shall He not make it good? ​

(Numbers 23:19)
​

our God is faithful; we can trust Him at His word

 

[John146]

i think this guy should be looking into how the passage should be interpreted rather than how to justify God being unfaithful to His own word.

the Israelites learned what it is like to breach the promise of God. they did not learn what it is like when God breaks His own promise: that is impossible:

God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that He should repent: ​

hath He said, and shall He not do it? or hath He spoken, and shall He not make it good? ​

(Numbers 23:19)​

​

our God is faithful; we can trust Him at His word

I agree.

 

[hornetguy]

My suggestion is that all you KJV-onlyists PLEASE do not use anything but the KJV.

My second suggestion is to leave the rest of us ALONE. We have had these "discussions" on here for literally YEARS, and nobody has been convinced, one way or the other, of whom I am aware. All you are doing is spreading hatred and discord. How about you simply allow people to use the version they want to use, and let the Spirit guide them in their understanding. I seriously doubt many of us are going to perform any exorcisms, and need to know whether to use fasting AND prayer. That has nothing to do with our salvation.

You go play amongst yourselves, arguing jots and tittles, backslapping each other on your pious "correctness"....

 

[John146]

My suggestion is that all you KJV-onlyists PLEASE do not use anything but the KJV.

My second suggestion is to leave the rest of us ALONE. We have had these "discussions" on here for literally YEARS, and nobody has been convinced, one way or the other, of whom I am aware. All you are doing is spreading hatred and discord. How about you simply allow people to use the version they want to use, and let the Spirit guide them in their understanding. I seriously doubt many of us are going to perform any exorcisms, and need to know whether to use fasting AND prayer. That has nothing to do with our salvation.

You go play amongst yourselves, arguing jots and tittles, backslapping each other on your pious "correctness"....

Is there a more important doctrine than the reliability of God’s word? If God’s word can’t be trusted, why read and study? That’s all brother. Passionate about God’s word, not pious...

 

[Dino246]

Is there a more important doctrine than the reliability of God’s word?

YES!

The Person, death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ!

You won't be saved on the basis of your belief in the reliability of God's word.

 

[John146]

YES!

The Person, death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ!

You won't be saved on the basis of your belief in the reliability of God's word.

Agreed, I thought that was settled.

 

[Dino246]

Agreed, I thought that was settled.

Then why did you ask?

 

[WithinReason]

My second suggestion is to leave the rest of us ALONE.

Feel free to not participate, and allow those of us who do desire to speak on this subject, and discuss, to do so in charity (1 Cor. 13).