What's new
Christian Forums

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Do not use Chrome Incognito when registering as it freezes the registration page.
  • Online forum for sale. Please send Stovebolts PM for details. https://meetchristians.net
  • Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
  • No longer will OSAS vx OSNAS be allowed to be debated, argued, or discussed in theology forum. Too much time is required to monitor and rescources used to debate this subject which hasn't been definitively decided in 3,000 years.

What is regarded the best and most accurate version of the Bible?

OzSpen

Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2014
Messages
5,253
Gender
Male
Christian
Yes
Just to clarify, JoeBean started this thread. And I think it's a great question!

It is a head scratcher that some passages may only have been added later. Is there anything in those questioned passages that really changes the Faith, or what we are to do on a day to day basis?

I don't think so.
Raze,

Over many years of studying the Scriptures, I've compared translations based on the Byzantine and Alexandrian texts and I haven't found any major doctrine affected by whether one accepts one or the other.

The argument that one MSS type deleted from Scripture is often based on the consequences for doing this in Rev 22:18-19,

18 I am warning everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book. Suppose someone adds anything to them. Then God will add to that person the plagues told about in this book. 19 Suppose someone takes away any words from this book of prophecy. Then God will take away from that person the blessings told about in this book. God will take away their share in the tree of life. God will also take away their place in the Holy City (NIRV).​

However, these verses apply only to 'the words of the prophecy of this book' in which they are found (the Book of Revelation) and not to the entire Scripture. The Bible is a compilation of different books, written at different times in the biblical timeline.

The Book of Revelation is accepted generally as written by John, so 'this book' of prophecy is the prophetic Book of Revelation - which many find difficult to interpret.

Oz
 
Last edited:

Truth7t7

Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2012
Messages
296
Christian
Yes
Something that I noticed, Truth7t7, is that you titled this thread asking what version is the most accurate but throughout the thread you haven't been seeking that answer but instead have been pushing a KJV only agenda. Are you really wanting to answer your original question?

My answer is that the best would be the original autographed text. The best English version would most certainly be a translation into modern English rather than 500-year old English no longer used. The reason being that many of the words of the old English have completely different meanings now.
You mean like James 2:3 below? :)

James 2:3KJV
And ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing, and say unto him, Sit thou here in a good place; and say to the poor, Stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool:
 

Truth7t7

Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2012
Messages
296
Christian
Yes
Raze,

Over many years of studying the Scriptures, I've compared translations based on the Byzantine and Alexandrian texts and I haven't found any major doctrine affected by whether one accepts one or the other.

The argument that one MSS type deleted from Scripture is often based on the consequences for doing this in Rev 22:18-19,

18 I am warning everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book. Suppose someone adds anything to them. Then God will add to that person the plagues told about in this book. 19 Suppose someone takes away any words from this book of prophecy. Then God will take away from that person the blessings told about in this book. God will take away their share in the tree of life. God will also take away their place in the Holy City (NIRV).​

However, these verses apply only to the prophetic book in which they are found (the Book of Revelation) and not to the entire Scripture. The Bible is a compilation of different books, written at different times in the biblical timeline.

Oz
The complete Bible contains prophecy, Daniel, Ezekiel, Isaiah, Zechariah, Etc.

Your claim the warning of Revelation 22:18-19 only pertains to Revelation I will strongly disagree with.
 

OzSpen

Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2014
Messages
5,253
Gender
Male
Christian
Yes
Your claim the warning of Revelation 22:18-19 only pertains to Revelation I will strongly disagree with.
7t7,

Of course you would disagree. I understand that. However, the Book of Revelation was NOT written as the last book of the complete Bible. It was placed there by those who compiled the canon.

It wouldn't matter if it were placed before Matthew. The fact remains that it is a separate book that was written as a separate book of prophecy by the apostle John and Rev 22:18-19 applies only to that book.

See my article, The meaning of Revelation 22:18-19

Oz
 

Truth7t7

Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2012
Messages
296
Christian
Yes
Raze,

Over many years of studying the Scriptures, I've compared translations based on the Byzantine and Alexandrian texts and I haven't found any major doctrine affected by whether one accepts one or the other.

The argument that one MSS type deleted from Scripture is often based on the consequences for doing this in Rev 22:18-19,

18 I am warning everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book. Suppose someone adds anything to them. Then God will add to that person the plagues told about in this book. 19 Suppose someone takes away any words from this book of prophecy. Then God will take away from that person the blessings told about in this book. God will take away their share in the tree of life. God will also take away their place in the Holy City (NIRV).​

However, these verses apply only to the prophetic book in which they are found (the Book of Revelation) and not to the entire Scripture. The Bible is a compilation of different books, written at different times in the biblical timeline.

Oz
Appears to me that the NIV and NASB below has turned Lucifer/Satan into the "Morning Star" who is Jesus Christ.


Revelation 22:16KJV
16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

Isaiah 14:12KJV
12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

Isaiah 14:12NIV
How you have fallen from heaven,
morning star, son of the dawn!
You have been cast down to the earth,
you who once laid low the nations!

Isaiah 14:12NASB
“How you have fallen from heaven,
O star of the morning, son of the dawn!
You have been cut down to the earth,
You who have weakened the nations!
 
Last edited:

Razeontherock

Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2018
Messages
5,210
Gender
Male
Appears to me that the NIV and NASB below have turned Lucifer/Satan into the "Morning Star" who is Jesus Christ.


Revelation 22:16KJV
16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

Isaiah 14:12KJV
12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

Isaiah 14:12NIV
How you have fallen from heaven,
morning star, son of the dawn!
You have been cast down to the earth,
you who once laid low the nations!

Isaiah 14:12NASB
“How you have fallen from heaven,
O star of the morning, son of the dawn!
You have been cut down to the earth,
You who have weakened the nations!
Isaiah 14:12 warrants a closer look. What's it really saying?

Does the word in question have any bearing to the modern Muslim halal?

One of it's meanings is light bearer. And it most certainly does refer to the King of Babylon, but Prophecy is not usually limited to one, obvious meaning. There is clear doctrine that satan fell; I think his nature must have fallen along with it, so being re-named is fitting.
That doctrine is unaffected if Scripture never mentions Lucifer, as some assert.

Things like this are right on topic. Is enough known to really address this one passage?
 

Truth7t7

Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2012
Messages
296
Christian
Yes
Raze,

Over many years of studying the Scriptures, I've compared translations based on the Byzantine and Alexandrian texts and I haven't found any major doctrine affected by whether one accepts one or the other.

The argument that one MSS type deleted from Scripture is often based on the consequences for doing this in Rev 22:18-19,

18 I am warning everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book. Suppose someone adds anything to them. Then God will add to that person the plagues told about in this book. 19 Suppose someone takes away any words from this book of prophecy. Then God will take away from that person the blessings told about in this book. God will take away their share in the tree of life. God will also take away their place in the Holy City (NIRV).​

However, these verses apply only to 'the words of the prophecy of this book' in which they are found (the Book of Revelation) and not to the entire Scripture. The Bible is a compilation of different books, written at different times in the biblical timeline.

The Book of Revelation is accepted generally as written by John, so 'this book' of prophecy is the prophetic Book of Revelation - which many find difficult to interpret.

Oz
The doctrine of "Prayer And Fasting" has been removed in the NIV & ESV, a major Christian doctrine and practice in spiritual warfare.

1. Prayer

2. Fasting

Matthew 17:21KJV
Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting.
 

Razeontherock

Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2018
Messages
5,210
Gender
Male
The doctrine of "Prayer And Fasting" has been removed in the NIV & ESV, a major Christian doctrine and practice in spiritual warfare.

1. Prayer

2. Fasting

Matthew 17:21KJV
Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting.
Even I know enough to know that's not true. First of all, this one passage is hardly the entire basis for prayer and fasting. And if it were, that'd make it a pretty shaky notion.
Second, the ESV has a footnote that some manuscripts include v 21, and it gives the contents.

I won't comment on the NIV as I don't particularly like that one.
 

Truth7t7

Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2012
Messages
296
Christian
Yes
Raze,

Over many years of studying the Scriptures, I've compared translations based on the Byzantine and Alexandrian texts and I haven't found any major doctrine affected by whether one accepts one or the other.

The argument that one MSS type deleted from Scripture is often based on the consequences for doing this in Rev 22:18-19,

18 I am warning everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book. Suppose someone adds anything to them. Then God will add to that person the plagues told about in this book. 19 Suppose someone takes away any words from this book of prophecy. Then God will take away from that person the blessings told about in this book. God will take away their share in the tree of life. God will also take away their place in the Holy City (NIRV).​

However, these verses apply only to 'the words of the prophecy of this book' in which they are found (the Book of Revelation) and not to the entire Scripture. The Bible is a compilation of different books, written at different times in the biblical timeline.

The Book of Revelation is accepted generally as written by John, so 'this book' of prophecy is the prophetic Book of Revelation - which many find difficult to interpret.

Oz
Biblebelievers.org

Matthew

1:25 "her firstborn" is omitted. That Jesus was her firstborn indicates that Mary and Joseph had sexual relations after the birth of Jesus and that others were born of her. The omission here seeks to add credence to the false doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church concerning the perpetual virginity of Mary. The Bible is clear that Jesus had brothers and sisters.

5:22 "without a cause" is removed. In the Sermon on the Mount the Lord warned of judgment for those who were angry with a brother without a cause. Should this change be accepted everyone who is angry with his brother may be judged. The effect is to bring Jesus into judgment for failing to observe his own words (see Mark 3:5). Such is contrary to the doctrine of the sinlessness of Christ.

6:4, 6, 18 "openly" is out. It is a Bible Doctrine that Christian work done unnoticed for the glory of the Lord will one day be rewarded openly (Col. 3:4).

6:13 "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever, Amen" is deleted. This ascription of praise to "Our Father" is found in 491 out of 500 existing manuscripts. This statement was made a century ago by Dean John Burgon.

8:29 "Jesus" is left out. The demons bore witness to the fact that Jesus was the Son of God. It was an identification of Jesus (in humanity) as the Son of God (in Deity). It affects the doctrine of the Person of Christ.

9:8 "marvelled" is changed to "were afraid." There is no reason to believe that the people were afraid because Jesus healed the sick of the palsy. There is every reason for them to marvel at the miracle.

9:13 "to repentance" is left out. The Bible doctrine of repentance is one that men would like to do away with. God requires that in order to be saved one must truly repent (Acts 17:30; II Peter 3:9). The word means "a change of mind" and there must be that concerning God, sin and salvation. Men think that sin does not really separate them from God—they must change their mind about that. Men think that salvation is by works—they must change their mind about that. There is nothing more evident today than the absence of repentance among those who are professing to be converted.

15:8 "draweth nigh unto me with their mouth" is left out.According to Isaiah 29:13 it belongs in because Isaiah prophesied of these hypocrites exactly that way.

16:2,3 "When it is evening . . . the signs of the times" is all omitted. The Pharisees and Sadducees came looking for a sign and the signs were all around them. Jesus called them hypocrites because they could not tell the signs of the times.

17:21 Whole verse is left out. Sanctification to be had by prayer and fasting. That is a fundamental truth of the Word of God.

18:2 "Jesus" is left out. This is done many times by the corrupt Greek Text of Westcott and Hort. I have not chosen to remark about each instance because it would add many pages to this work. The MAJORITY Text continuously places the word "Jesus" in the narrative with the definite article preceding it. Thus it places him in the center of things and in command. It is doctrinally unsound for such prominence to be discarded for the word "he."

18:11 The whole verse is omitted. This verse tells us that man is lost, that he needs to be saved, and that the Son of man is the one who can do that. The doctrine of salvation through Jesus Christ is affected by this change.

18:15 "against thee" is omitted. This omission sets us up as watchdogs over others and if one sins we are to go and tell him. Such is not the teaching of Scripture. Were we to declare every sin we would be constantly busy (bodies) judging the actions and motives of everyone. This change is a very bad error.

18:35 "their trespasses" is omitted. Same thought as mentioned in 18:15.

19:9 "and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery" is removed. This is a very important doctrinal change which concerns divorce and remarriage. A woman who divorces her husband and remarries commits adultery, and also the man who marries the divorced wife commits adultery.

19:16,17 "Good" before Master is omitted. In addition to that, the phrase "Why callest thou me good?" is changed to "Why askest thou me concerning the good?" Good Master is correct and Jesus responded to show the young man that only one was good and that one was God. The conclusion should have been obvious. Since Jesus was good he was necessarily God. The omission and change destroys the intended testimony to the Deity of Christ.

20:16 "for many be called, but few chosen" is left out. The Lord would have us know that many are called to inherit eternal life, but few are chosen by virtue of believing in Christ. It is a Bible doctrine that God wants all men to be saved but few will come to Christ for salvation.

21:12 "of God" is out. God came to His own temple which was the virgin-born Jesus Chrsit, and said, "My house shall be called the house of prayer." The body of Jesus was the temple of God and the God of the temple was there. Today, the Body of Christ is the Church or Jesus Christ.

22:30 "of God" is removed. There are good angels and fallen angels. The believers, in the resurrection, will be as the good angels "of God," indeed they are the angels of God.

23:8 "Master" is changed to "teacher." There are many teachers but only one master. The change here takes away the pre-eminence that God intends for his Son.

25:13 "wherein the Son of man cometh" is omitted. The warning to watch is tied to the imminent return of the Lord. The omission here does away with the doctrine of the Lord's 'parousia,' (and NOT His second Advent).

26:28 "new" is dropped before testament. The apostle Paul tells us that Jesus said, "this cup is the NEW testament in my blood." The change here is intended to corrupt the Word of God and to confuse non-Christians. (The elect of God, or Christians, cannot be deceived on the revealed Word of God for His sheep receive His Word).

27:35 "that it might be fulfilled . . . did they cast lots" is all omitted. It is very important in Matthew's Gospel, where Jesus is portrayed as the King of Israel, to show that he is the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies. Here the parting of his garments and casting lots is the fulfillment of Psalm 22:18 which portrays the crucifixion of Christ. To omit this is to show the intended corruption of the Word of God by the textual critics.

28:6 "the Lord" is omitted. The very reverent angels said, "see the place where the Lord lay." They would not say, "see the place where he lay." The constant attempt to humanize Jesus and take away from his Deity does not endear the Westcott and Hort Greek Text to believers.
 

Truth7t7

Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2012
Messages
296
Christian
Yes
Raze,

Over many years of studying the Scriptures, I've compared translations based on the Byzantine and Alexandrian texts and I haven't found any major doctrine affected by whether one accepts one or the other.

The argument that one MSS type deleted from Scripture is often based on the consequences for doing this in Rev 22:18-19,

18 I am warning everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book. Suppose someone adds anything to them. Then God will add to that person the plagues told about in this book. 19 Suppose someone takes away any words from this book of prophecy. Then God will take away from that person the blessings told about in this book. God will take away their share in the tree of life. God will also take away their place in the Holy City (NIRV).​

However, these verses apply only to 'the words of the prophecy of this book' in which they are found (the Book of Revelation) and not to the entire Scripture. The Bible is a compilation of different books, written at different times in the biblical timeline.

The Book of Revelation is accepted generally as written by John, so 'this book' of prophecy is the prophetic Book of Revelation - which many find difficult to interpret.

Oz
Biblebelievers.org

Mark

1:1 "the Son of God" is left out. These words present Jesus Christ as Deity. Such an omission is a direct attack on the person of Christ and is without doubt a doctrinal error.

1:31 "immediately" is dropped. The descriptive word tells us when the fever left her and therefore provides us with a miracle. The word left out denies the miracle and thus the one who performed it.

2:17 "to repentance" is left out. See comments on Matthew 9:13.

3:15 "to heal sicknesses" is omitted. Jesus gave them authority to heal diseases as well as to cast out demons. Sickness is the result of sin and the only one who has authority to eliminate it is the one who would die for sin. On the basis of his approaching death for sin on Calvary he could say, "Son, thy sins be forgiven thee" and "Rise up and walk."

4:24 "and unto you that hear shall more be given" is left out. It is a Bible teaching that those who seek truth from the Lord shall be given more truth (see John 7:17).

5:36 "as soon" is dropped. The word in the Greek is "immediately." The word immediately is constantly dropped by the Revisers of 1881. It is a key word in Mark which is the Gospel of the Servant of the Lord who came "not to be ministered unto, but to minister." When Jairus was told that his daughter was dead and that he should not trouble Jesus further, the Lord "immediately" encouraged him to believe.

6:11 "Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment, than for that city" is removed from the text. This passage emphasizes the great degree of responsibility that was upon those cities who heard the Lord's apostles as they preached repentance and worked miracles before them. Sodom and Gomorrah did not have such light, yet they are still suffering the eternal wrath of God (see Jude 7 where "suffering" is in the present tense). How much more the judgment of America today where people sit in an abundance of complete revelation from God and choose to remain in darkness.

7:8 "as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do" is omitted. The Lord not only condemns the Pharisees for traditions of men, but he names them. There are traditions of men today which are sending people to Hell and preachers need to name them. It is doctrinally unsound to let men go on in traditions and not expose them.

9:23 "if thou canst believe" is dropped. The father had said to Jesus, "if thou canst do anything." To this lack of faith Jesus answered, "if thou canst believe." It was at once a rebuke and an encouragement to have faith in him. The father's answer in the next verse is beautiful but the Revisers ruined that also. They omitted "with tears, Lord" from the most precious answer as recorded by the Spirit of God.

9:45 "into the fire that never shall be quenched" is dropped. The character and duration of Hell is described here and the doctrine of retribution and eventual annihilation is affected by this change.

9:47 "fire" is omitted. The words are inspired and in complete agreement with Rev. 20:15. The consignment of the lost to the lake of fire is a Bible doctrine.

10:21 "take up the cross" is left out. The word to the young man was to divest himself of the riches in which he trusted, consider himself dead to the world, and follow Christ into eternal life. There are many who will let go of riches and seek to emulate some of Christ's teachings, but the way of the cross they refuse. The cross for Christ and for believers is Fundamental in Christian doctrine.

10:24 "for them that trust in riches" is left out. This is a very glaring doctrinal error. It is not hard to enter into the kingdom of God (salvation is a free gift through faith in Jesus Christ) but it is hard for those who trust in riches to trust Christ alone for salvation. Their God is their wealth and it is no more compatible with Christ than Dagon was with the Ark of God (see I Samuel 5:1-5).

11:26 The whole verse is removed. It is a Bible doctrine that if we regard iniquity in our heart the Lord will not hear us. Answered prayer and clean vessels go together. When I confess my sins and ask God for favor he requires that my confession of sin include forgiveness of those who have sinned against me. If I refuse to forgive others it becomes sin to me (see Ephesians 4:32).

13:14 "spoken of by Daniel the prophet" is dropped. Without the reference to Daniel the appeal to understand is without force. Though some might connect it in their thoughts because they are familiar with Scripture, it does not follow that he is referring to Daniel. The reference to Daniel by the Lord also authenticates his writing as inspired Scriptures.

14:22 "eat" is dropped. Our Lord did not give them a relic from the Last Supper to take home and cherish. He gave them broken bread to eat which (when observed) would always remind them of his body which was broken for them.

15:28 The whole verse is left out. Jesus was crucified between two thieves in fulfillment of Isaiah 53:12. It is doctrinal error to eliminate clear statements concerning the fulfilling of prophecy (see Luke 24:27).

16:9-20 Twelve verses are omitted. These verses are found in every known manuscript but two (the oldest of those two leaves a blank space where it belongs). They are found in all the Versions, quoted by the church fathers, and seen in the lectionaries of the church. There are many doctrines affected by the omission of these twelve verses. The resurrection of Christ is deleted. The great commission, baptism, eternal damnation and His ascension into Heaven are all taken out of the Word of God. Certainly the gospel does not end with "they were afraid." Some say the ending has been lost (see Dr. Ryrie's Study Bible) but that destroys the Bible Doctrine that God preserves His Word (see I Peter 1:23-25). The evidence is clear that these verses are original and to cut them out is to affect many doctrines of the Christian faith.
 

Razeontherock

Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2018
Messages
5,210
Gender
Male
25). The evidence is clear that these verses are original and to cut them out is to affect many doctrines of the Christian faith.
Nope. There is much more evidence to indicate that such discrepancies were only added later than there is for what you claim. Barraging the forum won't help you.

Any ONE of these instances can be discussed productively. Continuing to pile on makes conversation impossible. Why don't you pick one, or two, instances that you feel are the most significant? Then the forum can discuss those with the intention of being guided into which version they want to read next.
 

JohnDB

Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
9,066
Gender
Male
Even I know enough to know that's not true. First of all, this one passage is hardly the entire basis for prayer and fasting. And if it were, that'd make it a pretty shaky notion.
Second, the ESV has a footnote that some manuscripts include v 21, and it gives the contents.

I won't comment on the NIV as I don't particularly like that one.
I'm not exactly fond of some of the new editions of the NIV. I use the one that came out in the 60's.

But I happen to actually like it.
I'm fairly familiar with the way their work

Most denominations didn't really like it (especially the Calvinists, JWs, SDA and others) because most of the nuances of the scriptures that they used as proof texts for their particular theologies were gone. Thompson Chain reference doesn't work with an NIV because of the obvious contradictions.
So even though all the denominations were represented in the translating work they all refused to endorse the final product.

The NIV is one of the most popular translations out there for the "unchurched" and churched even if it is the least respected in the pulpits.
 

OzSpen

Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2014
Messages
5,253
Gender
Male
Christian
Yes
Appears to me that the NIV and NASB below has turned Lucifer/Satan into the "Morning Star" who is Jesus Christ.


Revelation 22:16KJV
16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

Isaiah 14:12KJV
12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

Isaiah 14:12NIV
How you have fallen from heaven,
morning star, son of the dawn!
You have been cast down to the earth,
you who once laid low the nations!

Isaiah 14:12NASB
“How you have fallen from heaven,
O star of the morning, son of the dawn!
You have been cut down to the earth,
You who have weakened the nations!
Do you know the original languages so that you know which is the correct rendering?
 

OzSpen

Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2014
Messages
5,253
Gender
Male
Christian
Yes
The doctrine of "Prayer And Fasting" has been removed in the NIV & ESV, a major Christian doctrine and practice in spiritual warfare.

1. Prayer

2. Fasting

Matthew 17:21KJV
Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting.
It doesn't seem to enter your thinking that this verse was ADDED to the Byzantine text-type of the Textus Receptus. That view is just as viable as yours.
 

OzSpen

Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2014
Messages
5,253
Gender
Male
Christian
Yes
Biblebelievers.org

Matthew

1:25 "her firstborn" is omitted. That Jesus was her firstborn indicates that Mary and Joseph had sexual relations after the birth of Jesus and that others were born of her. The omission here seeks to add credence to the false doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church concerning the perpetual virginity of Mary. The Bible is clear that Jesus had brothers and sisters.

5:22 "without a cause" is removed. In the Sermon on the Mount the Lord warned of judgment for those who were angry with a brother without a cause. Should this change be accepted everyone who is angry with his brother may be judged. The effect is to bring Jesus into judgment for failing to observe his own words (see Mark 3:5). Such is contrary to the doctrine of the sinlessness of Christ.

6:4, 6, 18 "openly" is out. It is a Bible Doctrine that Christian work done unnoticed for the glory of the Lord will one day be rewarded openly (Col. 3:4).

6:13 "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever, Amen" is deleted. This ascription of praise to "Our Father" is found in 491 out of 500 existing manuscripts. This statement was made a century ago by Dean John Burgon.

8:29 "Jesus" is left out. The demons bore witness to the fact that Jesus was the Son of God. It was an identification of Jesus (in humanity) as the Son of God (in Deity). It affects the doctrine of the Person of Christ.

9:8 "marvelled" is changed to "were afraid." There is no reason to believe that the people were afraid because Jesus healed the sick of the palsy. There is every reason for them to marvel at the miracle.

9:13 "to repentance" is left out. The Bible doctrine of repentance is one that men would like to do away with. God requires that in order to be saved one must truly repent (Acts 17:30; II Peter 3:9). The word means "a change of mind" and there must be that concerning God, sin and salvation. Men think that sin does not really separate them from God—they must change their mind about that. Men think that salvation is by works—they must change their mind about that. There is nothing more evident today than the absence of repentance among those who are professing to be converted.

15:8 "draweth nigh unto me with their mouth" is left out.According to Isaiah 29:13 it belongs in because Isaiah prophesied of these hypocrites exactly that way.

16:2,3 "When it is evening . . . the signs of the times" is all omitted. The Pharisees and Sadducees came looking for a sign and the signs were all around them. Jesus called them hypocrites because they could not tell the signs of the times.

17:21 Whole verse is left out. Sanctification to be had by prayer and fasting. That is a fundamental truth of the Word of God.

18:2 "Jesus" is left out. This is done many times by the corrupt Greek Text of Westcott and Hort. I have not chosen to remark about each instance because it would add many pages to this work. The MAJORITY Text continuously places the word "Jesus" in the narrative with the definite article preceding it. Thus it places him in the center of things and in command. It is doctrinally unsound for such prominence to be discarded for the word "he."

18:11 The whole verse is omitted. This verse tells us that man is lost, that he needs to be saved, and that the Son of man is the one who can do that. The doctrine of salvation through Jesus Christ is affected by this change.

18:15 "against thee" is omitted. This omission sets us up as watchdogs over others and if one sins we are to go and tell him. Such is not the teaching of Scripture. Were we to declare every sin we would be constantly busy (bodies) judging the actions and motives of everyone. This change is a very bad error.

18:35 "their trespasses" is omitted. Same thought as mentioned in 18:15.

19:9 "and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery" is removed. This is a very important doctrinal change which concerns divorce and remarriage. A woman who divorces her husband and remarries commits adultery, and also the man who marries the divorced wife commits adultery.

19:16,17 "Good" before Master is omitted. In addition to that, the phrase "Why callest thou me good?" is changed to "Why askest thou me concerning the good?" Good Master is correct and Jesus responded to show the young man that only one was good and that one was God. The conclusion should have been obvious. Since Jesus was good he was necessarily God. The omission and change destroys the intended testimony to the Deity of Christ.

20:16 "for many be called, but few chosen" is left out. The Lord would have us know that many are called to inherit eternal life, but few are chosen by virtue of believing in Christ. It is a Bible doctrine that God wants all men to be saved but few will come to Christ for salvation.

21:12 "of God" is out. God came to His own temple which was the virgin-born Jesus Chrsit, and said, "My house shall be called the house of prayer." The body of Jesus was the temple of God and the God of the temple was there. Today, the Body of Christ is the Church or Jesus Christ.

22:30 "of God" is removed. There are good angels and fallen angels. The believers, in the resurrection, will be as the good angels "of God," indeed they are the angels of God.

23:8 "Master" is changed to "teacher." There are many teachers but only one master. The change here takes away the pre-eminence that God intends for his Son.

25:13 "wherein the Son of man cometh" is omitted. The warning to watch is tied to the imminent return of the Lord. The omission here does away with the doctrine of the Lord's 'parousia,' (and NOT His second Advent).

26:28 "new" is dropped before testament. The apostle Paul tells us that Jesus said, "this cup is the NEW testament in my blood." The change here is intended to corrupt the Word of God and to confuse non-Christians. (The elect of God, or Christians, cannot be deceived on the revealed Word of God for His sheep receive His Word).

27:35 "that it might be fulfilled . . . did they cast lots" is all omitted. It is very important in Matthew's Gospel, where Jesus is portrayed as the King of Israel, to show that he is the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies. Here the parting of his garments and casting lots is the fulfillment of Psalm 22:18 which portrays the crucifixion of Christ. To omit this is to show the intended corruption of the Word of God by the textual critics.

28:6 "the Lord" is omitted. The very reverent angels said, "see the place where the Lord lay." They would not say, "see the place where he lay." The constant attempt to humanize Jesus and take away from his Deity does not endear the Westcott and Hort Greek Text to believers.
7t7,

So you took this list directly from another source that is promoting your KJV-Byzantine text-type agenda.

The same list is located HERE and HERE and HERE.

Oz
 

OzSpen

Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2014
Messages
5,253
Gender
Male
Christian
Yes
http://kingjamesbibletranslators.org

I recommend you check out the link, the education of the KJV translators is unbelievable, and to top it off "Bob Barker"
was the printer!
You didn't answer my question.

Here it is again - in case you overlooked it: Do you know the original languages so that you know which is the correct rendering?

The fact you refer me to a KJ Bible translators website confirms you are a KJV-only supporter.
 

OzSpen

Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2014
Messages
5,253
Gender
Male
Christian
Yes
Your answer is found in post #95 above, the scribes "Deleted" whole lines in the Greek Text, even Hort agrees to this fact.
#95 doesn't answer the problem. That's only a rehash of KJV-only data.

What standard do you use to determine 'whole lines in the Greek Text' were deleted? Sounds like you are using the Byzantine text-type as your standard of comparison.
Shouldn't that standard be the autographa? Which we don't have :mouthdrop

There are many variants (changes) in the copies available, because they, like us, are capable of copying wrong letters, words and sentences.

In fact, Erasmus's 7 Byzantine MSS were so edited that the last 6 verses of the Book of Revelation were not in any one of them. That's way more than a whole line deleted. There were many, many lines excised from the text - by whatever means! :oops

What would you do if you wrongly copied a whole line of text? I hope you would delete it.

I praise God for the many scholars who have laboured over MSS on papyri and vellum - in trying circumstances - to provide us with texts in the original languages and then translations in various languages.

I will not pursue this topic any more with you as we are spinning the wheels and are still stuck in the sand on the beach.

Oz
 
Last edited:

WIP

Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Dec 11, 2010
Messages
10,940
Gender
Male
Christian
Yes
Biblebelievers.org

Matthew

1:25 "her firstborn" is omitted. That Jesus was her firstborn indicates that Mary and Joseph had sexual relations after the birth of Jesus and that others were born of her. The omission here seeks to add credence to the false doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church concerning the perpetual virginity of Mary. The Bible is clear that Jesus had brothers and sisters.

5:22 "without a cause" is removed. In the Sermon on the Mount the Lord warned of judgment for those who were angry with a brother without a cause. Should this change be accepted everyone who is angry with his brother may be judged. The effect is to bring Jesus into judgment for failing to observe his own words (see Mark 3:5). Such is contrary to the doctrine of the sinlessness of Christ.

6:4, 6, 18 "openly" is out. It is a Bible Doctrine that Christian work done unnoticed for the glory of the Lord will one day be rewarded openly (Col. 3:4).

6:13 "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever, Amen" is deleted. This ascription of praise to "Our Father" is found in 491 out of 500 existing manuscripts. This statement was made a century ago by Dean John Burgon.

8:29 "Jesus" is left out. The demons bore witness to the fact that Jesus was the Son of God. It was an identification of Jesus (in humanity) as the Son of God (in Deity). It affects the doctrine of the Person of Christ.

9:8 "marvelled" is changed to "were afraid." There is no reason to believe that the people were afraid because Jesus healed the sick of the palsy. There is every reason for them to marvel at the miracle.

9:13 "to repentance" is left out. The Bible doctrine of repentance is one that men would like to do away with. God requires that in order to be saved one must truly repent (Acts 17:30; II Peter 3:9). The word means "a change of mind" and there must be that concerning God, sin and salvation. Men think that sin does not really separate them from God—they must change their mind about that. Men think that salvation is by works—they must change their mind about that. There is nothing more evident today than the absence of repentance among those who are professing to be converted.

15:8 "draweth nigh unto me with their mouth" is left out.According to Isaiah 29:13 it belongs in because Isaiah prophesied of these hypocrites exactly that way.

16:2,3 "When it is evening . . . the signs of the times" is all omitted. The Pharisees and Sadducees came looking for a sign and the signs were all around them. Jesus called them hypocrites because they could not tell the signs of the times.

17:21 Whole verse is left out. Sanctification to be had by prayer and fasting. That is a fundamental truth of the Word of God.

18:2 "Jesus" is left out. This is done many times by the corrupt Greek Text of Westcott and Hort. I have not chosen to remark about each instance because it would add many pages to this work. The MAJORITY Text continuously places the word "Jesus" in the narrative with the definite article preceding it. Thus it places him in the center of things and in command. It is doctrinally unsound for such prominence to be discarded for the word "he."

18:11 The whole verse is omitted. This verse tells us that man is lost, that he needs to be saved, and that the Son of man is the one who can do that. The doctrine of salvation through Jesus Christ is affected by this change.

18:15 "against thee" is omitted. This omission sets us up as watchdogs over others and if one sins we are to go and tell him. Such is not the teaching of Scripture. Were we to declare every sin we would be constantly busy (bodies) judging the actions and motives of everyone. This change is a very bad error.

18:35 "their trespasses" is omitted. Same thought as mentioned in 18:15.

19:9 "and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery" is removed. This is a very important doctrinal change which concerns divorce and remarriage. A woman who divorces her husband and remarries commits adultery, and also the man who marries the divorced wife commits adultery.

19:16,17 "Good" before Master is omitted. In addition to that, the phrase "Why callest thou me good?" is changed to "Why askest thou me concerning the good?" Good Master is correct and Jesus responded to show the young man that only one was good and that one was God. The conclusion should have been obvious. Since Jesus was good he was necessarily God. The omission and change destroys the intended testimony to the Deity of Christ.

20:16 "for many be called, but few chosen" is left out. The Lord would have us know that many are called to inherit eternal life, but few are chosen by virtue of believing in Christ. It is a Bible doctrine that God wants all men to be saved but few will come to Christ for salvation.

21:12 "of God" is out. God came to His own temple which was the virgin-born Jesus Chrsit, and said, "My house shall be called the house of prayer." The body of Jesus was the temple of God and the God of the temple was there. Today, the Body of Christ is the Church or Jesus Christ.

22:30 "of God" is removed. There are good angels and fallen angels. The believers, in the resurrection, will be as the good angels "of God," indeed they are the angels of God.

23:8 "Master" is changed to "teacher." There are many teachers but only one master. The change here takes away the pre-eminence that God intends for his Son.

25:13 "wherein the Son of man cometh" is omitted. The warning to watch is tied to the imminent return of the Lord. The omission here does away with the doctrine of the Lord's 'parousia,' (and NOT His second Advent).

26:28 "new" is dropped before testament. The apostle Paul tells us that Jesus said, "this cup is the NEW testament in my blood." The change here is intended to corrupt the Word of God and to confuse non-Christians. (The elect of God, or Christians, cannot be deceived on the revealed Word of God for His sheep receive His Word).

27:35 "that it might be fulfilled . . . did they cast lots" is all omitted. It is very important in Matthew's Gospel, where Jesus is portrayed as the King of Israel, to show that he is the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies. Here the parting of his garments and casting lots is the fulfillment of Psalm 22:18 which portrays the crucifixion of Christ. To omit this is to show the intended corruption of the Word of God by the textual critics.

28:6 "the Lord" is omitted. The very reverent angels said, "see the place where the Lord lay." They would not say, "see the place where he lay." The constant attempt to humanize Jesus and take away from his Deity does not endear the Westcott and Hort Greek Text to believers.
When a phrase is translated from one language to another, the translator has no recourse but to do so by expressing a thought. Differences in sentence structure, word meanings, context, and interpretation of the message all play a role. For example, because of the sentence structure differences between languages, to translate a phrase from French or Spanish to English in direct word-for-word form would generally result in a phrase that would not make any sense at all. This is because the order of nouns, verbs, adjectives, etc. are different. Furthermore, some of the French or Spanish words won't have an English equivalent so what does one do with that? The only choice is to translate the phrase thought-for-thought along with intent-for-intent.

Here's an example of how changing the order of just one word within a sentence written in English can completely change the meaning of the entire sentence.

Only you can have a sandwich for lunch. When I read this sentence, it is understood that I am the only one that can have a sandwich and nobody else.

You can only have a sandwich for lunch. Moving the word "only" to a different place within the same 8-word sentence and look what happens. Now, it is understood that all I can have is a sandwich for lunch and nothing else. Also, the word "you" could be either singular or plural and possibly addressing a group.

You only can have a sandwich for lunch. Look what happened now. Now, the sentence is confusing. Is this sentence saying that I can have a sandwich and nothing else or is it saying that I am the only one that can have a sandwich and nobody else?

There isn't a Bible that has been translated into English or any language that is truly accurate. Every one of them is the result of a group of scholars agreeing on the intended meaning. Just like my sample sentence above, just repeating what another has said is really just another form of translation but how the translator understands what is said or written can impact the result.

Whenever we carry on a conversation, the intention of what what is said and what is understood can be entirely different. Since we don't have the original autographed text to work from we are left with ancient writings that had already been translated at least once or more even if within the same language. Therefore, we are stuck trying to piece it all together by combining the reference texts we have.

Even if we did have the original autographed text to work from and we could read and understand the words, we would not agree on the intended meaning of what is written. This is then when we rely on the Holy Spirit to guide us, teach us, and lead us toward understanding God's intended meaning.
 

OzSpen

Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2014
Messages
5,253
Gender
Male
Christian
Yes
When a phrase is translated from one language to another, the translator has no recourse but to do so by expressing a thought. Differences in sentence structure, word meanings, context, and interpretation of the message all play a role. For example, because of the sentence structure differences between languages, to translate a phrase from French or Spanish to English in direct word-for-word form would generally result in a phrase that would not make any sense at all. This is because the order of nouns, verbs, adjectives, etc. are different. Furthermore, some of the French or Spanish words won't have an English equivalent so what does one do with that? The only choice is to translate the phrase thought-for-thought along with intent-for-intent.

Here's an example of how changing the order of just one word within a sentence written in English can completely change the meaning of the entire sentence.

Only you can have a sandwich for lunch. When I read this sentence, it is understood that I am the only one that can have a sandwich and nobody else.

You can only have a sandwich for lunch. Moving the word "only" to a different place within the same 8-word sentence and look what happens. Now, it is understood that all I can have is a sandwich for lunch and nothing else. Also, the word "you" could be either singular or plural and possibly addressing a group.

You only can have a sandwich for lunch. Look what happened now. Now, the sentence is confusing. Is this sentence saying that I can have a sandwich and nothing else or is it saying that I am the only one that can have a sandwich and nobody else?

There isn't a Bible that has been translated into English or any language that is truly accurate. Every one of them is the result of a group of scholars agreeing on the intended meaning. Just like my sample sentence above, just repeating what another has said is really just another form of translation but how the translator understands what is said or written can impact the result.

Whenever we carry on a conversation, the intention of what what is said and what is understood can be entirely different. Since we don't have the original autographed text to work from we are left with ancient writings that had already been translated at least once or more even if within the same language. Therefore, we are stuck trying to piece it all together by combining the reference texts we have.

Even if we did have the original autographed text to work from and we could read and understand the words, we would not agree on the intended meaning of what is written. This is then when we rely on the Holy Spirit to guide us, teach us, and lead us toward understanding God's intended meaning.
Excellent response WIP. :thumbsup

But it may be a bit too logical! :thinking
 
Last edited:
Top