Who were the false teachers allegedly sent out by them? Please specify.
Should be "went out". My bad. They only give you five minutes to proof read after you post. That's why the end of my last post is bold. I didn't have the time to fix it.
So are you saying the Judaizers were teaching falsehoods in relation to what the twelve taught the believing Jews in Jerusalem? If so, what's your basis? I realize the twelve stated that they had not sent out the Judaizers to cross over to the Gentile churches under Paul's ministry, but that doesn't automatically point to the Judaizers teaching anything other than what was upheld by the twelve, so please do explain the correlation between what you seem to be saying and the textual statements inspired by the Lord Himself.
By departing from the Christian fellowship, they rejected the Gospel message.
1 John 4:2-3 By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God,
and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world.
1 John 18-23 Little children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that the Antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come, by which we know that it is the last hour.
They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us. But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and you know all things.
I have not written to you because you do not know the truth, but because you know it, and that no lie is of the truth.
Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist who denies the Father and the Son. Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father either; he who acknowledges the Son has the Father also.
2 John 1:7 For many deceivers have gone out into the world who do not confess Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.
I disagree because you're trying to appeal to confusion / burden shift, and subjectively choosing one over the other. Furthermore, if the claim is “different versions prove disagreement, so therefore the one is invalid because of its disagreement with the one I have chosen,” that violates the inherent concept that disagreement about interpretation/wording doesn’t automatically refute the underlying doctrine. That’s often related to non sequitur (“MY chosen translation” ⇒ “the other one must be false or in error”).
When your argument assumes that because a translation committee chose wording A instead of B, assuming that necessarily proves deliberate doctrinal change or unreliability, it violates the defining concept of evidence-weighting. Conclusions should track the kind of difference shown (wording vs manuscript evidence vs omissions). The Greek Lexicons don't necessarily agree with your conclusion in all cases.
The hasty generalization / sweeping claim you're making asserts that comparing versions is the easiest way to expose misinterpretations from “outdated English and bad translations,” which implies (without evidence) that most discrepancies mainly come from bad/outdated translation and that this method will straightforwardly reveal “misinterpretations.”
So, no. My colleagues and I have spent thousands of hours pouring over this and we have what we're comfortable in stating about these kinds of generalizations. The plethora of arm chair experts out there who haven't done the homework necessary to glean a deeper understanding about the subject generally are following after their little educated pastors/Sunday school teachers, favorite online commentator or some other source not familiar with the host of manuscripts from which the KJV translation committee drew from. No other committee has yet matched the scholastic scope in numbers and depth of that committee. The NIV and other of the more recent "translations" do not match by comparison. It's assumed by many that modern scholarship compares to that of the KJV committee as the flat-earth beliefs of the 15th century compares to NASA today. That has roots in some of the grossest of assumptions imaginable. That's not to say I'm KJV only since I do trapse over into the manuscripts and interlinears and such, but I turn a more jaundiced eye toward the recent translations by comparison.
MM
I stand by what I said. The many interpret the few. Think of it as hermeneutics using different translations. No doubt, there are some translations to avoid. Just like there are some teachers to avoid. It's not far fetched, in fact, most sound minds agree that the KJV has many errors in it. Aside from that, some three hundred words that have changed in meaning over the last 400 years. We also have the old English which states things backwards. And this error carried over into some of the newer translations. Like John 1:12-13
The incorrect translation
NKJV John 1:12-13 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
The correct translation
NEV--John 1:12-13 Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God—children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.
Do you see the difference? One allows that "right" to be realized at Pentecost, when it WAS realized. And also allows for being born again as part of the promise realized at Pentecost (still future). The first, the NKJV, made being being born again a cause of believing, which is false. This is why KJV onlyist's cling to these false interpretations. To hold onto the lies.
I use the NKJV, but there is error that carries over into all the translations from the KJV. Like, why do we sill have 'tongues' in the modern versions? It just means languages. There are whole false systems of teaching that were created partially from error just like that. The KJV mistranslating words, many times using the word "Hell" when it should have been translated "Hades". The NKJV corrected that. Although, one could argue that many back in the 1600's their interpretation of "Hell" means the same what we mean by "Hades" today.
Why do you ask me to explain what I mean, if apparently, you already know enough to make those "kinds of generalizations" about me and what I wrote?
Dave
