Bible Study Bible Corruptions

[BlessedCreator]

Every single word in the Bible is vitally important. Any attempt to add, delete or change a word
or text in the word of God, especially in the book of Revelation (Rev 22:19), will attract the wrath of God.

The Bible is the guide to the sanctification and salvation of our souls.
It is how we understand what God's will is. In it are the commandments and words that direct
us in the way in which we are to live to be found worthy of the kingdom of God.

Therefore we need to make sure we are reading from the uncorrupted word of God.
Which to me and many other English readers is found in the King James Bible.

The King James Bible was translated out of the original tongues with former
translations diligently compared and revised by the command of King James. 47 of the best scribes
in the Church of England worked from 1604 to 1611 to complete the work. Creating the original 1611 editon
of the King James Bible.
The following editions up to 1880 were mainly for standardizing the spelling and fixing printing mistakes.
From archaic English to modern English. Here's a few examples.

blinde ---> blind
sinne ---> sin
almightie ---> almighty
raigned ---> reigned
receiue ---> receive
certainetie --> certainty

The meaning of the words have never changed as they have in corrupted Bibles.

Many of us read from the 1762 or 1769 or later editions of the King James Bible.
The same words as the original 1611 edition, only the spelling of the words has been updated.
You can have full confidence in your Kings James Bible.

Beware alterations that attempt to exploit the King James name,
such as the New King James Version.

Most modern Bibles are translated from Westcott & Hort's Greek New Testament.
These two men were known heretics with much evidence proving they were deeply involved in the occult.
Even founding two secret societies. The Hermes Club and the Ghostly Guild.
There is plenty of webpages exposing Westcott & Hort so I won't go into much detail here.



What I would like to examine here is what these corrupted Bibles do that is so bad.

If you compare the King James Bible with modern Bibles such as the NIV, NASV, NKJV, ESV, ASV,
RSV, JB, LB, TEV, NEB, NRSV, NAB, CEV, NBV and many others, you will notice there are thousands of
words and verses changed or omitted (removed). You will notice critical points completely altered.
You will begin to notice there are evil agendas in these corrupted Bibles.

Here are some of the blasphemous attacks these wicked Bibles make on the word of God.

Attack on the deity of Jesus Christ by changing the word God to He, changing the word
Christ to One, changing Christ's own words when He says "my Father" to "the Father" and more.
References for you to compare between Bibles:
[Timothy 3:16 / Daniel 3:25 / Acts 3:13,26 / Philippians 2:6 / Acts 8:37 / John 6:69]
[John 9:35 / Matthew 20:20 / John 4:42 / Acts 15:11 / Acts 16:31 / Romans 1:3/ 1 Corinthians 5:4]
[Ephesians 3:14 / 1 Thessalonians 2:19 / 1 Thessalonians 3:11 / 2 Thessalonians 1:8]
[John 14:28 / Philippians 4:13 / Acts 7:59]

They completely remove verses about Christ coming in the flesh or about His flesh.
This is an attack on the incarnation of Christ.
[John 4:3 / Acts 2:30 / Ephesians 5:30]

They alter scripture concerning the virgin birth of Jesus. Changing verses to indicate
that He was born of an earthly father and altering verses to cast doubt upon the virginity
of Mary at Jesus' birth.
[Matthew 1:25 / Luke 2:33 / Luke 2:43]

They attack the atonement of Christ of which we are pardoned from our very sins through His blood.
[Colossians 1:14,24 / 1 Corinthians 11:24 / 1 Corinthians 5:7 / 1 Peter 4:1]
[Ephesians 1:14 / Hebrews 1:3]

They question almost every appearance of Jesus after His resurrection, causing doubts
concerning His bodily resurrection and deity.
[Mark 16:9-20 / Luke 9:31 / Acts 1:3 / Ephesians 5:30]
[Luke 13:12 / Luke 24:12,40]

CONTINUE IN NEXT POST

 

[BlessedCreator]

They remove almost every mention of Christ's ascension into Heaven where He now is.
[John 16:16 / Luke 24:51 / Mark 16:19 / John 3:13]
They attack the Godhead. The manifestation of God to us through
the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
[1 John 5:7 / Isaiah 48:16 / Romans 1:20 / Acts 17:29 / Colossians 2:9]
They attack the justification of salvation through faith in Jesus Christ.
(let us not forget that we are only given faith when we strictly obey God)
[Acts 8:37 / Romans 11:6 / Romans 11:30-32 / Hebrews 3:18]
[Galatians 5:22 / John 6:47 / Hebrews 1:3 / Mark 10:24 / Matthew 6:22]
Alterations and omissions diminish the authority of Scripture and discourage
confidence in its divine inspiration and preservation.
[Luke 4:4 / Psalm 12:6,7 / 2 John 9 / 2 Corinthians 2:17]
Attack on the masculine deity of God. New versions frequently change masculine
words referring to God to the neuter "One". False religions of this world
often identify their god as "the One". The new "Politically Correct" bible calls
God, "Father-Mother", and Christ, "the human one".
[John 7:8 / Colossians 3:10 / John 6:69 / Revelation 1:18]
[John 12:45 / John 15:21 / Matthew 13:37]
In the only passage of Scripture which describes Lucifer's iniquity and
fall into hell, most new versions omit the name Lucifer
and confuse his identity with Jesus Christ.
[Isaiah 14:12 / Luke 4:8]
New versions exalt man to being "a little lower than God" and omit many references
to his fallen spiritual condition. Cults, the New Age and false religions also
raise mankind to the level of being divine or in the process of evolving into gods.
[Psalm 8:5 / Matthew 18:11 / Colossians 3:6 / Mark 15:28]
[New versions frequently delete words such as "righteousness", "holy", "perfect"
and other requirements of the sanctified life. As a result, the gospel is brought
into reproach by worldliness and corruption in the church.
[1 Thessalonians 5:27 / 2 Peter 1:21 / 1 Peter 1:22 / 1 Corinthians 2:6 / 2 Timothy 3:17]
[Proverbs 21:21 / 1 Peter 2:12 / Titus 1:8 / Jude 1:1 / Mark 10:21 / Matthew 20:16]
[Romans 8:1 / Matthew 5:44 / 2 Timothy 2:15 / 1 Timothy 4:15 / Revelation 22:14]

CONTINUED IN 3RD AND FINAL POST

 

[JohnDB]

Ok...
I don't think that you know the actual history of the English translation of the Scriptures.

It's plainly obvious that you really don't understand that this Cambridge version (labeled as KJV but is in truth not the KJV) of scriptures is not the only accurate translation.

Here on this forum is a thread that describes in detail how and why the scriptures came to be in English instead of the other languages (primarily Latin)

Here's the link:

https://christianforums.net/Fellowship/index.php?threads/game-of-thrones.78874/

 

[for_his_glory]

greatsite.com - English Bible History

This explains the whole history of the various translations. Personally I have always used the KJV and I never had a problem understanding it as for after all it's the Holy Spirit that teaches us all things.

 

[JohnDB]

greatsite.com - English Bible History

This explains the whole history of the various translations. Personally I have always used the KJV and I never had a problem understanding it as for after all it's the Holy Spirit that teaches us all things.

Why don't you look at the link above and see what I wrote about it all...it can reveal a lot about what is out there and why.

 

[for_his_glory]

JohnDB that website I posted has all of that in there plus so much more as it's really detailed.

 

[jasonc]

Why don't you look at the link above and see what I wrote about it all...it can reveal a lot about what is out there and why.

Good read

 

[Prycejosh1987]

Every single word in the Bible is vitally important. Any attempt to add, delete or change a word
or text in the word of God, especially in the book of Revelation (Rev 22:19), will attract the wrath of God.

Agreed. Adding or taking away from the bible is heresy. I don't think Gods wrath will occur straight away but over time.

 

[BlessedCreator]

Thread post was reported (by me) to be removed because I found out later that some of the content was in violation of a copyright. Please visit https://www.gffg.info/1/corruptedbibles.html for proof of corruption in modern Bibles. The copyrighted content were the list items of corruptions found in the different Bibles. The content is available in the above link with proper copyright rules followed.

 

[jerry63935]

is there versions/translations we need to stay away from? i am sure i have been told there is a gay Bible i use kjv what i cut my teeth on.. i use others also in reading . i am not a NIV fan but many use it. i like the christian standard Bible rather well . we dont have the original writings nor is kjv the authorized anointed version approved by God .i have yet to see one but i been told there are versions that take away virgin birth use use young woman .i have been told of versions that takes away the Blood. but as i stated i have yet to see one.. i really doubt there is a approved version by God .

 

[jaybo]

Why is it so difficult to understand that all English Bibles are translations? The earliest manuscripts -- there are no originals -- are in ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek. The vocabulary, grammar, idioms, verb tenses, etc. are quite different from English, so it is impossible to have a literal translation that is readable and understandable.

There is a spectrum from formal to functional translations: formal translations try to interpret the early texts "word for word" (even though this is impossible); functional translations try to interpret the early texts "meaning for meaning" (trying to create the same understanding of the texts as the ancient peoples had).

The King James Version is no more accurate than the New Living Translation -- the opposite ends of the spectrum. To complicate matters, the King James Version is written in a dead language, i.e., one that is not current in today's world. As a result it is easily (mis)interpreted to make it mean what the reader wants it to mean. (I have not seen a single post -- ever -- that was written in early 17th Century English.)

Since almost every single one of us is not a trained translator I feel it best to a) read the introductions to the Bibles used to understand the goal and process of translation and b) realize that none of them are perfect -- such a thing is impossible. It's best to rely on the skill, knowledge, and experience of the men and women who have created the translation, understanding the process and their goals, rather than claiming that "my translation is the only true Word of God".

 

[SovereignGrace]

Any bible I read, whether it be a KJV, ESV, NIV, NASB(my favorite to use), NKJV, NET, et al, is the word of God. I just don‘t get this KJVO stuff. It’s idolatry, as those who adhere to this have it up on a pedestal.

 

[Quantrill]

It is actually a very important issue as to which Bible translation one uses. To say they are all the Word of God glosses over some real problems.

As we don't have any original manuscripts of Scripture, what we have is the Word of God to the degree that it corresponds to the original. If it doesn't correspond to the original, then it isn't the Word of God.

As said, we don't have an original to copy from. But we have many manuscripts, copies, versions, etc. etc., to sift through and compare to, to make a decision as to what this verse says, and to whether or not it was there in the original.

There are differences in Modern translations and that of the King James because they are not always translating from the same source, the same manuscripts or versions etc. The King James translates the Old Testament from the Masoretic Text, which is the Hebrew Bible. Modern versions will lean heavily on the so called Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Old Testament.

Concerning the New Testament, if I remember right, we have some 5,000 writings to compare to, to arrive at a decision. The KJV uses the majority of these to arrive at its translation of the New Testament. It is called the 'majority text', for this reason. It is also called the 'Textus Receptus'. Also called the 'Antioch Text'.

The modern versions of the New Testament, use Wescott and Hort text which comes from only about 45 Alexandrian manuscripts to arrive at its text. Thus it is called the 'Minority Text' as it uses a small number. Also called the 'Alexandrian Text'.

This makes the KJV far superior than any modern version in my opinion. It's Old Testament is based upon the Hebrew Old Testament. It's New Testament is based upon the majority of the large amount of writings to compare to.

Quantrill

 

[jaybo]

It is actually a very important issue as to which Bible translation one uses. To say they are all the Word of God glosses over some real problems.

As we don't have any original manuscripts of Scripture, what we have is the Word of God to the degree that it corresponds to the original. If it doesn't correspond to the original, then it isn't the Word of God.

As said, we don't have an original to copy from. But we have many manuscripts, copies, versions, etc. etc., to sift through and compare to, to make a decision as to what this verse says, and to whether or not it was there in the original.

There are differences in Modern translations and that of the King James because they are not always translating from the same source, the same manuscripts or versions etc. The King James translates the Old Testament from the Masoretic Text, which is the Hebrew Bible. Modern versions will lean heavily on the so called Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Old Testament.

Concerning the New Testament, if I remember right, we have some 5,000 writings to compare to, to arrive at a decision. The KJV uses the majority of these to arrive at its translation of the New Testament. It is called the 'majority text', for this reason. It is also called the 'Textus Receptus'. Also called the 'Antioch Text'.

The modern versions of the New Testament, use Wescott and Hort text which comes from only about 45 Alexandrian manuscripts to arrive at its text. Thus it is called the 'Minority Text' as it uses a small number. Also called the 'Alexandrian Text'.

This makes the KJV far superior than any modern version in my opinion. It's Old Testament is based upon the Hebrew Old Testament. It's New Testament is based upon the majority of the large amount of writings to compare to.

Quantrill

I'm not sure where you get this information but it's just not the case. Modern translations are derived from many sources: the earliest manuscripts (ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek) as well as thousands of non-Biblical texts that elucidate the languages' meanings.

It seems there is always an unfounded rationalization to make the King James version something that it isn't. It's a flawed translation that is over 400 years old, based on a limited number of manuscripts, written in a dead language. Modern translations, including King James Version revisions -- why was it revised a number of times? -- are far better in terms of readability and comprehension than the 1611 King James Version.

 

[Quantrill]

I'm not sure where you get this information but it's just not the case. Modern translations are derived from many sources: the earliest manuscripts (ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek) as well as thousands of non-Biblical texts that elucidate the languages' meanings.

It seems there is always an unfounded rationalization to make the King James version something that it isn't. It's a flawed translation that is over 400 years old, based on a limited number of manuscripts, written in a dead language. Modern translations, including King James Version revisions -- why was it revised a number of times? -- are far better in terms of readability and comprehension than the 1611 King James Version.

No, the King James is based on the Hebrew text for the Old Testament, and 'Majority Text' for the New Testament. . Modern translations are based on the so called Septuagint for the Old and the 'Minority Text' for the New.

So the King James is not based on a 'limited number' of manuscripts as you claim. It is based upon most of the manuscripts, copies, versions, etc. The modern translations are based on a limited number, not the King James. You have it backwards.

Quantrill

 

[jaybo]

No, the King James is based on the Hebrew text for the Old Testament, and 'Majority Text' for the New Testament. . Modern translations are based on the so called Septuagint for the Old and the 'Minority Text' for the New.

So the King James is not based on a 'limited number' of manuscripts as you claim. It is based upon most of the manuscripts, copies, versions, etc. The modern translations are based on a limited number, not the King James. You have it backwards.

Quantrill

I'm not sure if you read some (biased) article but you are totally wrong! Modern translations are based on a variety of sources in order to have the most accuracy. The Old Testament is based primarily on the Masoretic Text, with the assistance of many other ancient texts that aid understanding. (The Septuagint is the Koine Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible and is never used to create the English Old Testament). The primary New Testament source is the Nestle-Aland 28th Edition, but not exclusively.

The translation I use most often is the NET Bible (v. 2.1) "For the Old Testament the translators started with the Masoretic Text found in the current edition of the BHS (Biblica Hebraica Stuttgartensia). Other sources were used for accuracy and clarification; "such variations from the Masoretic Text were noted by the individual translator."

"For the New Testament an eclectic text was followed, differing in several hundred places from the standard critical text as represented by the Nestle-Aland 28th Edition."

It would undoubtedly be of help if you did a little research before you post ill-informed "facts", i.e., propaganda, which are wrong.

 

[GodIsMySavior]

Every single word in the Bible is vitally important. Any attempt to add, delete or change a word
or text in the word of God, especially in the book of Revelation (Rev 22:19), will attract the wrath of God.

The Bible is the guide to the sanctification and salvation of our souls.
It is how we understand what God's will is. In it are the commandments and words that direct
us in the way in which we are to live to be found worthy of the kingdom of God.

Therefore we need to make sure we are reading from the uncorrupted word of God.
Which to me and many other English readers is found in the King James Bible.

CONTINUE IN NEXT POST

When in doubt, go to the Greek texts themselves.
For me, Young Literal Translation renders the Greek words more consistently and fairly accurately than most others, [esp the KJV.]

Here is a site that shows 5 of the Grk texts most versions use and shows many verions for each verse..

Greek New Testament - Parallel Greek New Testament by John Hurt

The Parallel Greek New Testament can be downloaded for $5.00 or shipped on CD ROM, and contains 14 parallel Bible texts, including 5 Greek font texts.

www.greeknewtestament.com

Revelation 1:1 [all 5 texts agree]

Stephens 1550 Textus Receptus
apokaluyiV ihsou cristou hn edwken autw o qeoV deixai toiV douloiV autou a dei genesqai en tacei kai eshmanen aposteilaV dia tou aggelou autou tw doulw autou iwannh
================
A literal word for word translation from an interlinear using every word that is in the Gk texts:

Revelation 1:1
An-un-veiling/revealing of Jesus Christ, which gives to Him, the GOD, to show to the bond-servants of Him which-things is binding to be becoming in/en <1722> swiftness/tacei <5034>. [2 word phrase repeated again in Revelation 22:6]
=============
2 popular versions plus YLT:

Revelation 1:1 - Prologue

This is the revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show His servants what must soon come to pass. He made it known by sending His angel to His servant John,

biblehub.com

King James Bible
The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:

New American Standard Bible
The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His bond-servants, the things which must soon take place; and He sent and communicated it by His angel to His bond-servant John,

Young's Literal Translation
A revelation of Jesus Christ, that God gave to him, to shew to his servants what things it behoveth to come to pass quickly; and he did signify it, having sent through his messenger to his servant John,
=======================
The Gk word for "quickly" is going to happen swifly, in haste. Everything will be over quickly.

5034. tachos takh'-os from the same as 5036; a brief space (of time), i.e. (with 1722 prefixed) in haste:--+ quickly, + shortly, + speedily.

 

[Quantrill]

I'm not sure if you read some (biased) article but you are totally wrong! Modern translations are based on a variety of sources in order to have the most accuracy. The Old Testament is based primarily on the Masoretic Text, with the assistance of many other ancient texts that aid understanding. (The Septuagint is the Koine Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible and is never used to create the English Old Testament). The primary New Testament source is the Nestle-Aland 28th Edition, but not exclusively.

The translation I use most often is the NET Bible (v. 2.1) "For the Old Testament the translators started with the Masoretic Text found in the current edition of the BHS (Biblica Hebraica Stuttgartensia). Other sources were used for accuracy and clarification; "such variations from the Masoretic Text were noted by the individual translator."

"For the New Testament an eclectic text was followed, differing in several hundred places from the standard critical text as represented by the Nestle-Aland 28th Edition."

It would undoubtedly be of help if you did a little research before you post ill-informed "facts", i.e., propaganda, which are wrong.

Well, the KJV Old Testament is based on the Maserotic Text. It is not based on a variety of texts. The modern translations are based on a 'variety of sources', your words. The so called Septuagint, which modern translations depend on, is but a translation of Hebrew to Greek originating out of Africa. The KJV depends on the Hebrew originating out of Palestine, the land of the Jews. The Old Testament in the KJV is the exact same as the Hebrew Bible.

The New Testament, as I already said for the KJV, is based on the majority of manuscripts. The Modern translations are based on a very few manuscripts. This makes the KJV superior to the modern translations.

You can use words like 'eclectic' all you want. The fact is, the modern versions are based upon the minority texts. Some 45 I believe. The KJV is based upon the majority, some 5,000. More is better.

The KJV is sound. Modern translations are a failure and should be rejected.

Quantrill

 

[Quantrill]

When in doubt, go to the Greek texts themselves.

Which Greek texts? Westcott and Hort, or Textus Receptus?

Quantrill

 

[GodIsMySavior]

When in doubt, go to the Greek texts themselves.
For me, Young Literal Translation renders the Greek words more consistently and fairly accurately than most others, [esp the KJV.].

Which Greek texts? Westcott and Hort, or Textus Receptus?

Quantrill

I would choose TR and BM and compare the others to them.
As I showed in my previous post, it is not justthe texts that is the culprit, but fauly/inaccuratetranslations,

I could read the NIV, NKJV, just as well [as I could read Rotherham's or YLT for more accuracy and literalness]. I just simply avoid the KJV]

Received Text - The Received Text, or Textus Receptus, was compiled in 1516 by Desiderius Erasmus from a few manuscripts that were accepted at the time as the only trustworthy and reliable manuscripts. Later manuscript discoveries, (Majority Text), have confirmed the reliability of the Received Text.

Majority Text - Similar to the Received Text, but also is made up of a large majority of other Greek manuscripts.
The Majority Text are the majority of the extant Greek manuscripts used in the making of Textus Receptus, (Text Received), that the King James Bible is translated from.

Alexandrian Text - Is based mainly on two manuscripts; the Vaticanus, and the Sinaiticus.
Almost all modern English Bibles are based on the Alexandrian Text, (NIV, NAS, Good News, Living Bible, etc.); however, the King James Version is based on the Received Text.

Westcott and Hort were also the most influential members of the English revision committee which produced the English Revised Version of the Bible. The corresponding American revision committee, which developed the American Standard Version of 1901, was headed by another liberal evolutionist, Philip Schaff. Most new versions since that time have adopted the same presuppositions as those of the 19th century revisers.
============
And don't forget about Bibles printed in the non-English versions.....
This site also shows those:

Greek New Testament - Parallel Greek New Testament by John Hurt

The Parallel Greek New Testament can be downloaded for $5.00 or shipped on CD ROM, and contains 14 parallel Bible texts, including 5 Greek font texts.

www.greeknewtestament.com

Other Sites by johnhurt.com

King James Bible American Standard Version Bible in Basic English Darby Bible Douay Rheims Catholic Bible The Book of Jasher World English Bible Noah Webster Bible Weymouth New Testament Young's Literal Translation Afrikaans Bible Albanian Bible Bulgarian Bible Cebuano Bible Chinese "Big 5" Encoding Chinese "GB" Encoding Croatian Bible Danish Bible Dutch Bible Finnish Bible French Bible Gaelic (Manx) Bible Gaelic (Scots) Bible German Bible Greek New Testament (1550) Haitian Creole Bible Hebrew Old Testament Hungarian Bible Indonesian Baha Bible Indonesian Baru Bible Indonesian Lama Bible Italian Bible Korean Bible Latin Vulgate Latvian New Testament Maori Bible Modern Greek Norwegian Bible Portuguese Bible Rumanian Bible Russian Bible (Windows 1251 Encoding) Russian Bible (KO18R Encoding) Spanish Bible Swahili Bible Swedish Bible Tagalog Bible Ukrainian Bible Uma New Testament Vietnamese Bible (UTF8 Encoding) Vietnamese Bible (VNI Times Encoding)