Bible Problem

[Aussie52]

I agree with your analysis ...But that is why we do the research and work the Word

The KJV is helpful in that it has many (not all) of the added words in italic.... But KJ like may other versions omits many word that are in earliest MMS .... within that frame work the KJ omits the article countless times .. which in English would make a slight difference ...but in Greek it is a huge difference as the importance of the article is significant in its' use.

The one place I disagree is your reference to 1 John_5:7. being left out in many versions. It should be left out.... it doesn't matter if it was talking about the trinity or the sandals people wore....Then you trace the history of how that was added from a marginal note to being inserted it in itself is spurious. and it doesn't even fit with the context...

Cyprian the Church father quotes 1 John 5:7 in the second century, so I think there is good reason to believe that it was in the original NT text.

 

[LenMcM]

I use the NKJV but it like all other versions has numerous bad and misleading translation faults. This is why when studying it is essential to compare Scripture with Scripture and look for the overall meaning. All or at least most of modern translations have made great use of the "teachings" of Westcott and Hort. A look at there beliefs ( can be found via Google) shows that there is much to be wary of.

 

[Dino246]

Which translation of the Bible do you use? Many are unaware that the manuscripts used for the modern translations are highly spurious, because of the numerous differences between them and the Traditional Text (TT).

Differences between the two streams of text DO NOT tell us that the one behind most modern translations is "spurious". That is fallacious reasoning. The argument can be made in reverse (with equal validity), such that the traditional text is spurious because of the differences.

 

[NetChaplain]

I use the NKJV but it like all other versions has numerous bad and misleading translation faults. This is why when studying it is essential to compare Scripture with Scripture and look for the overall meaning. All or at least most of modern translations have made great use of the "teachings" of Westcott and Hort. A look at there beliefs ( can be found via Google) shows that there is much to be wary of.

Amen, these two producers of the modern translations were into the occult:

The Dean Burgon Society, section XI, http://deanburgonsociety.org/Preservation/westcott.htm

 

[Lynx]

Amen, these two producers of the modern translations were into the occult:

The Dean Burgon Society, section XI, http://deanburgonsociety.org/Preservation/westcott.htm

Come on NetChaplain. How long have you been here? Have you never heard of the Bible Discussion Forum before?

Has all this "This is my favorite Bible version"/"That Bible version is from the devil!" stuff taken you by surprise?

Or was it your intent all along to start a Bible version debate here?

 

[NetChaplain]

Come on NetChaplain. How long have you been here? Have you never heard of the Bible Discussion Forum before?

Has all this "This is my favorite Bible version"/"That Bible version is from the devil!" stuff taken you by surprise?

Or was it your intent all along to start a Bible version debate here?

I wouldn't think it maters where a Bible translation discussion is done, considering the importance of Scripture. Sorry but I disagree with you here.

 

[Lynx]

I wouldn't think it maters where a Bible translation discussion is done, considering the importance of Scripture. Sorry but I disagree with you here.

Then you really have never poked your nose in the Bible Discussion Forum.

(Protip: Don't.)

 

[NetChaplain]

Then you really have never poked your nose in the Bible Discussion Forum.

(Protip: Don't.)

I'm glad you brought this up. Do you think I should be posting in the Bible Discussion Forum? It seems it would be more accurate to my posts. God bless!

 

[NetChaplain]

Differences between the two streams of text DO NOT tell us that the one behind most modern translations is "spurious". That is fallacious reasoning. The argument can be made in reverse (with equal validity), such that the traditional text is spurious because of the differences.

The modern Bible show themselves to be corrupt by error (2Sam 21:19 - David killed Goliath, not Elhanan), and omissions of hundreds of Scriptures. One of many examples is 1Jn 5:7 which the entire passage is omitted.

 

[NetChaplain]

I use the NKJV but it like all other versions has numerous bad and misleading translation faults. This is why when studying it is essential to compare Scripture with Scripture and look for the overall meaning. All or at least most of modern translations have made great use of the "teachings" of Westcott and Hort. A look at there beliefs ( can be found via Google) shows that there is much to be wary of.

Section XI of "Were Westcott and Hort Secret Practitioners of the Occults?"
http://deanburgonsociety.org/Preservation/westcott.htm

 

[Lynx]

I'm glad you brought this up. Do you think I should be posting in the Bible Discussion Forum? It seems it would be more accurate to my posts. God bless!

You can if you want, but the only thing I've ever seen come from BDF is high blood pressure.

 

[Dino246]

The modern Bible show themselves to be corrupt by error (2Sam 21:19 - David killed Goliath, not Elhanan), and omissions of hundreds of Scriptures. One of many examples is 1Jn 5:7 which the entire passage is omitted.

Reread my previous post.

By your standard, you should also be calling the KJV "spurious" because it shows two different ages at which Ahaziah took the throne: 22 years old in 2 Kings 8:26 and 42 years old in 2 Chronicles 22:2.

 

[HealthAndHappiness]

Which translation of the Bible do you use? Many are unaware that the manuscripts used for the modern translations are highly spurious, because of the numerous differences between them and the Traditional Text (TT). The manuscripts used for the TT (Majority Text, or Textus Receptus, or Received Text) are much latter (5 century and latter) than those used for the modern translations (MT). The MT manuscripts were not used for copying purposes like those of the TT, because they had too many errors and therefore were rejected and did not wear out. This is what allowed the modern text to gain much ascendancy in popularity, due to their antiquity (3-4th century). As there are many differences between the manuscripts use for the MT, due to omissions, transpositions and interpolations, the early church would not use them (Vaticanus, Sinaticus and Alexandrinus).

What we have today now is that there are so many differences in these modern translations that attempting to memorize Scripture is impossible; and you can’t use a concordance with them because of the above problems stated. This produces a much less significant text that many do not know which should be followed, and thus the usual response is not reading them very much.

In the Hebrew text there are no manuscripts that contain the phrase “the brother of” in 2Sam 21:19. But instead of adding this phrase to make it a truthful reading, the MT’s have omitted it as well, making it an errant reading. Thus, it should read “Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew the brother of Goliath.” But the MT has it “Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew Goliath,” making it an errant reading in conflict with 1Chron 20:5, which states that “Elhanan the son of Jair struck down Lahmi the brother of Goliath” (the NIV had this omission until correcting it recently).

In David Fuller’s book ”Which Bible,” he states that in the winter of 1928 there was a prominent publication company that had a newspaper come out saying “Who Killed Goliath.” He continues to say that “a cablegram came from the most learned and devout scholars of the Church of England” and they “said in substance, that the Revised Version was correct, that Elhanan and not David killed Goliath; and that there were many other things in the Bible which were the product of exaggeration, such as the story of Noah and the ark, Jonah and the whale, the garden of Eden and the longevity of Methuselah.”

The Three manuscripts mentioned above are pretty much the ones these detractors use for their translations (compared to thousands of manuscripts used for the TT). The Vaticanus was found on a shelf in the Vatican library, which was there unused for 1500 years; the Sinaticus was found at monastery, where a monk was using some of the parchments for kindling to get a fire started. Both of these codexes are the oldest manuscripts (3rd century), and this is why they are given too much attention.

A greater harm these MT’s produce is from their omitting Scripture. For one of hundreds of examples, they omitted the entire passage of 1Jn 5:7, which is the primary Trinity doctrine.

Hope this is enough to get others interested in this problem, and I have a great deal more omissions to share on this if you are interested, just let me know.

God bless and always guide us to truth!

NC

You may have some answers from this documentary on the Bible.

 

[Lynx]

Well I only read The Message Bible. I think God's word should be easy for everyone to understand. And it's such a friendly bible!

Anybody who doesn't like The Message Bible is a legalistic old phart who just likes to act like he's smarter than other people. Those folks should go back to their greek and hebrew definitions and leave us normal folks alone with what we can read.






































JK! I don't read The Message Bible. But it was something this thread was missing. If you're gonna do a Bible argument thread, you oughta do it right.

 

[NetChaplain]

You can if you want, but the only thing I've ever seen come from BDF is high blood pressure.

Lol! That's because many Christians want to know (some think they know) the truths of Scripture--and understand it, and it can frustrate if we are not patient or seek where the truth can be found.

 

[NetChaplain]

You may have some answers from this documentary on the Bible.

Pretty accurate and informative vidio! Thanks and God bless!!

 

[NetChaplain]

Reread my previous post.

By your standard, you should also be calling the KJV "spurious" because it shows two different ages at which Ahaziah took the throne: 22 years old in 2 Kings 8:26 and 42 years old in 2 Chronicles 22:2.

Good find! Wasn't aware of this one, but it is so far as I know it is attributed also to scribal error, unless other suspicions are true. Take a look if you like: https://answersingenesis.org/bible-timeline/genealogy/two-ages-at-once/

 

[NetChaplain]

Differences between the two streams of text DO NOT tell us that the one behind most modern translations is "spurious". That is fallacious reasoning. The argument can be made in reverse (with equal validity), such that the traditional text is spurious because of the differences.

All I know is that I would rather have thousands of manuscript evidence (regardless their age), than just mainly two (Vaticanus and Sinaticus manuscripts). I don't count the other old one, the Alexandrinus because it is worst than these two.

 

[Dino246]

Good find! Wasn't aware of this one, but it is so far as I know it is attributed also to scribal error, unless other suspicions are true. Take a look if you like: https://answersingenesis.org/bible-timeline/genealogy/two-ages-at-once/

Ah... scribal error. It's so convenient to use in your favour, but irrelevant when it's used in defense of other translations. A person with integrity doesn't use arguments this way.

 

[Dino246]

All I know is that I would rather have thousands of manuscript evidence (regardless their age), than just mainly two (Vaticanus and Sinaticus manuscripts). I don't count the other old one, the Alexandrinus because it is worst than these two.

Understood, but unless you understand the history of manuscript evidence, you are simply employing a fallacy. The greater number of manuscripts does not indicate their validity at all.