Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. 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!

Are Doctrines affected by Modern Versions?

reddogs

Member
Since the beginning, there have been those who have inserted changes to fit their own doctrinal bias. Because they are predisposed to mans 'ideas' and 'interpretation', rather than the truth, their can be changes by unscrupulous men or those who do not fear God. This was the reason the Jews would not change the text, but do a word for word translation or manuscript, and this is not the case at the least for most of these 'modern' versions.

Lets compare one verse, 1 John 4:3:

NIV - but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.

RSV - and every spirit which does not confess Jesus is not of God. This is the spirit of antichrist, of which you heard that it was coming, and now it is in the world already.

ASV and every spirit that confesseth not Jesus is not of God: and this is the spirit of the antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it cometh; and now it is in the world already.

KJV - And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

We see here in 1 John 4:3 that the NIV takes out the whole point in the text, "NIV leaves out the fact that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh--yet another swipe at the divinity of Christ." https://mundall.com/erik/NIV-KJV.htm
 
Now take a closer look, you can see some important doctrinal truths that are attacked by these 'modern' versions. We see here where they even refutes the idea that the Bible is the preserved, inspired, Word of God. Note:

Psalms 12:6-7 (KJV) The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. 7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

Psalms 12:6-7 (NIV) And the words of the LORD are flawless, like silver refined in a furnace of clay, purified seven times. 7 O LORD, you will keep us safe and protect us from such people forever.

Can you see how the meaning is completely blurred by this supposed improved "Bible".

Now lets look at how just changing "God" to "He" they remove the fact that Jesus is God.

1 Timothy 3:16 (KJV) And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

1 Timothy 3:16 (NIV) Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is great: He appeared in a body, was vindicated by the Spirit, was seen by angels, was preached among the nations, was believed on in the world, was taken up in glory.

1 Timothy 3:16 (NASB) By common confession, great is the mystery of godliness: He who was revealed in the flesh,
Was vindicated in the Spirit, Seen by angels, Proclaimed among the nations, Believed on in the world,Taken up in glory.

Now look how by changing "Christ" to "God" they deny that Jesus is God.

Romans 14:10 (KJV) But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. Romans 14:12 (KJV) So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.

Romans 14:10 (NIV) You, then, why do you judge your brother? Or why do you look down on your brother? For we will all stand before God's judgment seat. Romans 14:12 (NIV) So then, each of us will give an account of himself to God.

Romans 14:10 (NASB) But you, why do you judge your brother? Or you again, why do you regard your brother with contempt? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God. Romans 14:12 (NASB) So then each one of us will give an account of himself to God.

Now what happened here...

John 9:35 (KJV) Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when he had found him, he said unto him, Dost thou believe on the Son of God?

John 9:35 (NIV) Jesus heard that they had thrown him out, and when he found him, he said, "Do you believe in the Son of Man?"

John 9:35 (NASB) Jesus heard that they had put him out, and finding him, He said, “Do you believe in the Son of Man?”

Its a shading of the truth of His divinity, what Jesus directly lays claim to.
 
The Alexandrian codices are the cause of all the confusion, and they make up the corrupted stream of text that is coming into our modern versions. If you look you will find there are only 2 streams of Bible versions, the true text of the Textus Receptus (Majority Text) on which the Authorized version and other tried and true text is based, and those which picked up the Alexandrian manuscripts (Minority Text) which have been shown to have deleted and changed many parts of the text and are unreliable. The Textus Receptus or Majority Text in which we find the vast majority of copies, has been attacked with changes, amendments, deletions, and what can only be seen attempts to diminish Gods truth. Many of the new modern versions such as the NIV and others are based on a few corrupted manuscripts which form the basis of the Minority Text, many which can be traced back to their original source, the Alexandrian codices. From what I have come across it seems that the Majority Text (Textus Receptus), also called the Byzantine Text is based on the vast majority of manuscripts still in existence. The manuscripts were brought together by many were faithful to its text such as Lucian, Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza and the Elzevir brothers to form the text known as Textus Receptus. When the Protestant Reformers decided to translate the scriptures directly from Greek into the languages of Europe, they selected Textus Receptus as their foundation Greek document and for good reason. So many of the new versions are based on the corrupted manuscripts and deletions which form the basis of the Minority Text, that its easy to pick one up and not notice. So how are Bible doctrines affected by these modern versions based on the Minority Text, lets take a look at what these changes do in this study I came across which states with Matthew:

Matthew 1:25 "her firstborn" is omitted. That Jesus was her firstborn indicates that Mary and Joseph had 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.

Matthew 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 in Mark 3:5 "5 And when he had looked round about on them with anger, being grieved for the hardness of their hearts, he saith unto the man, Stretch forth thine hand. And he stretched it out: and his hand was restored whole as the other." Such is contrary to the doctrine of the sinlessness of Christ.)

Matthew 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).

Matthew 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.

Matthew 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.

Matthew 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.

Matthew 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; 2 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.

Matthew 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.

Matthew 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.

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

Matthew 18:2 "Jesus" is left out. This is done many times by the corrupt Alexandrian Greek Text of Westcott and Hort. 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."

Matthew 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.

Matthew 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.

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

Matthew 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 man who divorces his wife and remarries commits adultery, and also the man who marries the divorced wife commits adultery.

Matthew 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.

Matthew 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.

Matthew 21:12 "of God" is out. Jesus, who was God in the flesh, came to his own temple and said, "My house shall be called the house of prayer." It was the temple of God and the God of the temple was there.

Matthew 22:30 "of God" is removed. There are good angels and fallen angels. The believers, in the resurrection, will be like the good angels "of God" who alone are in heaven.

Matthew 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.

Matthew 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 second advent.

It just goes on and on where the changes and omissions were purposely done to take away the divinity of Christ, confuse the issue, or totally wipe it out and keep it from the reader as this is the corruption of the Alexandrian Text or the Minority Text, and was a reason those codices were little used as they were avoided by believers from ancient times. They knew what was being done and we see it in Pauls warning..

2 Corinthians 2:17
For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.
 
I'm guessing this is a KJV only post. I used to be King James only about 10 years ago, I was raised that way. Frankly, that movement has no leg to stand on as all its arguments are based on ignorance and faulty assumptions. It doesn't take a lot of research to figure this out.

Yes, some doctrines are affected by translations. Including the KJV, which does contain translation errors and uses outdated language that mean different things now than it did when it was written. This is why going back to the original language and the manuscripts used to translate is so helpful.
 
Wow. Too much stuff.
You'd get a better response with bite-size pieces.
Your first page would have been great.
Just a suggestion - nothing wrong with what you've done.
Later...
 
It just goes on and on where the changes and omissions were purposely done to take away the divinity of Christ, confuse the issue, or totally wipe it out and keep it from the reader as this is the corruption of the Alexandrian Text or the Minority Text, and was a reason those codices were little used as they were avoided by believers from ancient times.
With all due respect, everything you have posted is a case of fallaciously begging the question and ignores the reality of manuscript evidence and how interpretation works. The vast majority of manuscript evidence was been found after the KJV was written. That is why changes Have been made in newer translations—because they found that some things in the KJV simply were poorly translated or incorrect. The KJV is based on inferior and very limited evidence.

Nowhere has any newer, legitimate translation tried to remove, confuse, or hide the deity of Christ. If they actually tried, it was done exceedingly poorly. It’s only about manuscript evidence and what the autographs most likely said.
 
Since the beginning, there have been those who have inserted changes to fit their own doctrinal bias. Because they are predisposed to mans 'ideas' and 'interpretation', rather than the truth, their can be changes by unscrupulous men or those who do not fear God. This was the reason the Jews would not change the text, but do a word for word translation or manuscript, and this is not the case at the least for most of these 'modern' versions.

Lets compare one verse, 1 John 4:3:

NIV - but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.

RSV - and every spirit which does not confess Jesus is not of God. This is the spirit of antichrist, of which you heard that it was coming, and now it is in the world already.

ASV and every spirit that confesseth not Jesus is not of God: and this is the spirit of the antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it cometh; and now it is in the world already.

KJV - And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

We see here in 1 John 4:3 that the NIV takes out the whole point in the text, "NIV leaves out the fact that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh--yet another swipe at the divinity of Christ." https://mundall.com/erik/NIV-KJV.htm
Hi reddogs,
I'm not sure if you're stating that the KJV is the best bible translation on the market.
I've read only the above because it's enough to make the case I believe you're making.

You have a problem with the NIV, and it's not one of my favorites either, but it does not, it seems to me, negate the divinity of Jesus. It does state that Jesus is from God, exactly the same as the others. If I've missed something, please point it out.

Also, I have to agree with the above poster, Free and his view of the KJV.
It was written too long ago when all the information we have today was not available.

But I do feel that any bible we read will bring us to the knowledge of God and His Son Jesus, and will teach us how to belong to the Kingdom.
 
I'm guessing this is a KJV only post. I used to be King James only about 10 years ago, I was raised that way. Frankly, that movement has no leg to stand on as all its arguments are based on ignorance and faulty assumptions. It doesn't take a lot of research to figure this out.

Yes, some doctrines are affected by translations. Including the KJV, which does contain translation errors and uses outdated language that mean different things now than it did when it was written. This is why going back to the original language and the manuscripts used to translate is so helpful.
No, I use a variety of Bibles, but noticed that some kept changing the meaning of what was said, and they all were based or can be traced back to the Alexandrian manuscripts which clearly had Gnostic influences in their text.
 
Here is a good explanation on the affects of Gnosticism, "
Dr. McGiffert, speaking of Simon Magus, says: "His effort to rival and surpass Jesus very likely began after his contact with the Christians that Luke records. His religious system was apparently a SYNCRETISM of Jewish and Oriental elements" (Hasting's Dictionary of the Apostolic Church, Vol. 2, p. 497)....."

While the church at Rome was allowing ancient religious ideas and paganism to creep into its teachings, the church in Alexandria was being corrupted by Greek philosophy and constructing doctrines influenced by Plato and the Stoics:

It is seen in the writings of Clement of Alexandria head of the Catechetical School of Alexandria. He united Greek philosophical traditions with Christian doctrine. He used the term "gnostic" for Christians who had attained the deeper teaching of the Logos which he felt was a lesser form of God, he taught that Christ was not really flesh but spirit. He developed a Christian Platonism, of which objects in the everyday world are imperfect copies. He presented the goal of Christian life as deification, or assimilation into God.

He arose from Alexandria's Catechetical School and was well versed in pagan literature which it seems he used to develop his doctrines. Clement is best remembered as the teacher of Origen who followed him as head of Alexandria's Catechetical School and interpreted scripture allegorically and showed himself to be a Neo-Pythagorean, and Neo-Platonist. Like Plotinus, he wrote that the soul passes through successive stages of incarnation before eventually reaching God. He imagined even demons being reunited with God. For Origen like his teacher Clement, God was the First Principle, and Christ, the Logos, was subordinate to him. He did not believe in the ressurection and taught against that the soul died along with the body, being restored to life only at the resurrection (see soul sleep).

His works were used in the formulation of the early churches doctrines, Origen wrote about 6,000 works. A list was given by Eusebius who studied them and seems to have continued some of the false beliefs which he passed on in his writings. He followed Origen later as bishop of Caesarea and spread his ideas as seen in the further development of the Arian controversies. For instance he was involved in the dispute with Eustathius of Antioch who opposed the growing influence of Origen, including his practice of an allegorical exegesis of scripture. Eustathius perceived in Origen's theology the roots of Arianism and fought against it. He was correct facts were to show, as Eusebius was intent upon emphasizing the difference of the persona of the Trinity and maintaining the subordination of the Son (Logos, or Word) to God. The Son (Jesus), as Arianism asserted, is a creature of God. This Logos, as a derivative creature and not truly God as the Father is truly God, could therefore change (Eusebius, with most early theologians, assumed God was immutable), and he assumed a human body without altering the immutable divine Father. The relation of the Holy Spirit within the Trinity Eusebius explained similarly to that of the Son to the Father. No point of this doctrine is original with Eusebius, all is traceable to his teacher Origen. http://orderofcenturions.org/documents/ember_eusebius.html

So lets look at what Simon Magus, who Peter encountered, formed, as the Gnostics was basically a mixture of Greek Philopsophy and Ancient Mystery religion, Zoroastrianism which was from Simon's magi background, and came to be known as Gnosticism. This Gnostic line of thought had certain characteristics which had serious moral and ethical consequences. Its basic belief was that matter was essentially evil and spirit alone was good. If as they thought, matter is evil, the body is evil; and the body must be despised and held down and we see where rigid asceticism came from. So following this line, if the body is evil, it does not matter what a man does with it. Therefore, man could sate his appetites and man could use his body in the most licentious way and it makes no difference. A common characteristic was the teaching that the realization of gnosis or the esoteric or intuitive knowledge, is the way to salvation of the soul from the material world. They mixed truth with falsehoods and Jesus is identified by some Gnostic sects as an embodiment of the supreme being who became incarnate to bring gnosis to the earth and the Gnostic sects develop the belief that Jesus was merely a human who attained divinity through gnosis and taught his disciples to do the same.

Gnosticism tried to blend the new religion but ultimately was against traditional Christian beliefs and attempted to combine Paganism with Christianity. Some Gnostic groups had beliefs that often contradicted the beliefs of other Gnostic groups. The movement spread in areas controlled by the Roman Empire and especially strong in Egypt, but the one thing that they all had in common was that all of these groups departed from the truth, and the Gnostic mixed their beliefs into the manuscripts they made of the scriptures, putting changes of their particular beliefs or taking out what disagreed with it.

The movement spread in areas controlled by the Roman Empire and especially in Rome and Egypt, and here is where it gets interesting. From Egypt we get some of their ideas and beliefs that were put into corrupted manuscripts and years later two of these manuscripts appeared. These were called Vaticanus & Sinaiticus since they were somehow 'found' in the Vatican Library & a monastery in the Sinai respectively. Neither was in the original Greek language, but in a Coptic translation, an early Egyptian language. Coptic placed the origin of these two texts in the region of Alexandria, Egypt the center of the gnosticism heresy. Hence they became known collectively as the Alexandrian Codices.

So we see where the twisting of the nature Christ begins and the mindset of who was changing the meaning, and the sources that it came from..
 
Lets compare one verse, 1 John 4:3:
Context is everything and the context makes mockery of your idea.
Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. 2 This is how you can recognise the Spirit of God: every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, 3 but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.

Read verse 2, also look at the footnote you will see ' NU ' against your so called questionable passage.
It is not there in every reliable document.
 
Context is everything and the context makes mockery of your idea.
Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. 2 This is how you can recognise the Spirit of God: every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, 3 but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.

Read verse 2, also look at the footnote you will see ' NU ' against your so called questionable passage.
It is not there in every reliable document.
The thing is, its not one verse, or even context, it is the whole manuscript that come from Alexandria. They were changed because of the views of the Gnostics were mixed into the Coptic text. And now it becomes even more interesting, as the Anglican theologians Westcott & Hort undertook the translation of these Coptic copies back into their original Greek language and the differences changes and deletions, to say nothing of context being gone, came in. Gone was the resurrection story in the book of Mark. Gone was Acts 8:37 where the Ethiopian eunuch confesses Jesus as the Son of God along with many other passages. All the modern translations which were written during this time frame are based on the Westcott & Hort Coptic Greek text including the American Standard Version (ASV), the New International Version (NIV), the New World Translation (NWT) in fact almost all the new version have picked up the Gnostic Alexandrian manuscripts with its 'alterations'...
 
And these 'alterations' were not to 'improve' the translations, but for what were what I would call misrepresentation of the truth. Look at a just a small part of Westcott and Hort ideas...

1. Westcott's Views:

He denied the historicity of Genesis 1-3. He wrote to the Archbishop of Canterbury, March 4, 1890, the following:

"No one now, I suppose holds that the first three chapters of Genesis, for example, give a literal history. I could never understand how anyone reading them with open eyes could think they did."

2. Hort's View:

…Agreed with Charles Darwin's false evolutionary theory. On April 3, 1860, he wrote:


"But the book which has most engaged me is Darwin. Whatever may be thought of it, it is a book
that one is proud to be contemporary with…My feeling is strong that the theory is unanswerable."


3. Hort's View:

He denied a literal Eden and a real fall of man.

"I am inclined to think that no such state as "Eden" (I mean the popular notion) ever existed and that Adam's fall in no degree differed from the fall of each of his descendants, as Coleridge justly
agrees."

4. Hort writing to Westcott calls atonement "immoral.”

"I entirely agree--correcting one word--with what you there say on the atonement, having for many years believed that "the absolute union of the Christian (or rather, of man) with Christ Himself" is the spiritual truth of which the popular doctrine of substitution is an immoral and material counterfeit...Certainly, nothing could be more unscriptural than the modern limiting of Christ's bearing our sins and sufferings to His death: but indeed, that is only one aspect of an almost universal heresy.”


5. Westcott believes that visions of the Virgin are merely God changing form. In a letter to a cohort
from his séance club he writes:

“As far as I could judge, the idea of La Salette (France) was that of God revealing Himself now,
not in one form, but in many.”

Note: (Our Lady of La Salette (French: Notre-Dame de La Salette) is a Marian apparition reported by two children, Maximin Giraud and Mélanie Calvat to have occurred at La Salette-Fallavaux, France, in 1846.) His view on visions now appears on pages of all new versions.

6. Hort believes in the Sacraments.

"I am a staunch sacerdotalist…the Sacraments must be the center. The band of a common divine life derived in Sacraments is the most comprehensive bond possible". (The Life and Letters of
F.J.A. Hort, p. 99)

7. Westcott: No separation from worldly lusts.

"There was a time when it was usual to draw a sharp line between religious and worldly things.
That time has happily gone by.”


8. Hort admits he knows little about church history, in a letter to a friend.

"I am afraid I must have talked big and misled you when you were here, for I really know very little of church history." (Arthur Hort, The Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, Vol. 1,
P. 233)

9. Hort believes in the worship of Mary.

"I have been persuaded for many years that Mary-worship and Jesus-worship have very much in
common in their cause and in their results.” (The Life and Letters of F.J.A. Hort, Vol. 2, p. 50)


10. Hort concerning Salvation - Not by faith.

A. His desire: He “pleaded for the social interpretation of the Gospel.”

B. His vision: When “the crude individualism of common notions of salvation is corrected, as

expressed in 'too purely personal Evangelical hymns.”

C. His belief: “Without any act of ours, we are children of the Great and Gracious Heavenly

Father.”

D. His denial of Christ's sacrifice: "Christ bearing our sins ... [is] an almost universal HERESY.”


(The Life and Letters of B. F. Westcott, Vol. 2, p. 158, 373 334, 401, 224, 57. Vol. 1, p.428-430. F.J.A. Hort, The 1st Epistle of St. Peter, 1:1-2:17. The Greek Text with Introductory Lecture. Commentary and Additional Notes, p.77, by James & Klock Publishing Co.,Minneapolis, MN, reprint 1976).
 
Here is a basic list which shows what version they were based on...

American Standard Version
Modern English 1901 Masoretic Text, Westcott and Hort 1881 and Tregelles 1857

American King James Version
Modern English 1999 Revision of the King James Version

Amplified Bible
Modern English 1965 Revision of the American Standard Version

An American Translation
Modern English 1935 Masoretic Text, various[which?] Greek texts.

ArtScroll Tanakh (Old Testament)
Modern English 1996 Masoretic Text

An American Translation
Modern English 1976 Masoretic Text, various[which?] Greek texts.

Berkeley Version
Modern English 1958

Bible in English
Modern English 1949

The Bible in Living English
Modern English 1972

Bishops' Bible
Early Modern English 1568 Masoretic Text, Textus Receptus

Catholic Public Domain Version
Modern English 2009 Sixtus V and Clement VIII Latin Vulgate

Children's King James Version
Modern English 1962 Revision of the King James Version.

Christian Community Bible, English version
Modern English 1986 Hebrew and Greek

Clear Word Bible
Modern English 1994

Complete Jewish Bible
Modern English 1998 Paraphrase of the Jewish Publication Society of America Version (Old Testament), and from the original Greek (New Testament).

Contemporary English Version
Modern English 1995

Concordant Literal Version
Modern English Restored Greek syntax. A concordance of every form of every Greek word was made and systematized and turned into English. The whole Greek vocabulary was analyzed and translated, using a standard English equivalent for each Greek element.

A Conservative Version
Modern English 2005

Coverdale Bible
Early Modern English
1535 Masoretic Text, the Greek New Testament of Erasmus, Vulgate, and German and Swiss-German Bibles (Luther Bible, Zürich Bible and Leo Jud's Bible)

Darby Bible
Modern English 1890 Masoretic Text, various critical editions of the Greek text (i.a. Tregelles, Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort)

Douay-Rheims Bible
Early Modern English
1582 (New Testament)
1609–1610 (Old Testament) Latin, Greek and Hebrew manuscripts

Douay-Rheims Bible (Challoner Revision)
Modern English 1752 Clementine Vulgate

Easy English Bible
Modern English 2001 Wycliffe Associates (UK)

Easy-to-Read Version
Modern English 1989 Textus Receptus, United Bible Society (UBS) Greek text, Nestle-Aland Text

Emphasized Bible
Modern English 1902 Translated by Joseph Bryant Rotherham based on The New Testament in the Original Greek and Christian David Ginsburg's Massoretico-critical edition of the Hebrew Bible (1894)

English Jubilee 2000 Bible
Modern English 2000 Reina-Valera (1602 Edition)

English Standard Version
Modern English 2001 Revision of the Revised Standard Version. (Westcott-Hort, Weiss, Tischendorf Greek texts)

Ferrar Fenton Bible
Modern English 1853 Masoretic Text and the Westcott and Hort Greek text

Geneva Bible
Early Modern English
1557 (New Testament)
1560 (complete Bible) Masoretic Text, Textus Receptus

God's Word
Modern English 1995

Good News Bible
Modern English 1976 United Bible Society (UBS) Greek text

Great Bible
Early Modern English 1539 Masoretic Text, Greek New Testament of Erasmus, the Vulgate, and the Luther Bible.

Holman Christian Standard Bible
Modern English 2004 Masoretic Text, Nestle-Aland Text.

The Inclusive Bible
Modern English 2007 From the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek

International Standard Version
Modern English 2011

Jerusalem Bible
Modern English 1966 From the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, with influence from the French La Bible de Jérusalem.

Jesus' Disciples Bible
Early Modern English 2012 Masoretic Text, Textus Receptus, Tyndale 1526 NT, some Erasmus manuscripts, and Bezae 1598 TR.

Jewish Publication Society of America Version Tanakh (Old Testament)
Modern English 1917 Masoretic Text

Judaica Press Tanakh (Old Testament).
Modern English1963 Masoretic Text

Julia E. Smith Parker Translation
Modern English 1876 Masoretic Text, Textus Receptus

King James 2000 Version
Modern English 2000 Revision of the King James Version.

King James Easy Reading Version
Modern English 2010 Revision of the King James Version. The Received Text.

King James Version
Early Modern English 1611 Masoretic Text, Textus Receptus, Tyndale 1526 NT, some Erasmus manuscripts, and Bezae 1598 TR.

King James II Version
Modern English 1971 Masoretic Text, Textus Receptus

Knox's Translation of the Vulgate
Modern English 1955 Vulgate, with influence from the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.

Lamsa Bible
Modern English 1933 Syriac Pesh*tta

A Literal Translation of the Bible
Modern English 1985 Masoretic Text, Textus Receptus (Estienne 1550)

Leeser Bible, Tanakh (Old Testament)
Modern English 1994 Masoretic Text

The Living Bible
Modern English 1971

American Standard Version (paraphrase)

The Living Torah and The Living Nach. Tanakh (Old Testament)
Modern English 1994 Masoretic Text

Matthew's Bible
Early Modern English1537 Masoretic Text, the Greek New Testament of Erasmus, the Vulgate, the Luther Bible, and a French version[which?].

The Message
Modern English 2002

Modern King James Version
Modern English 1990 Masoretic Text, Textus Receptus

Modern Language Bible
Modern English 1969

Moffatt, New Translation
Modern English 1926

James Murdock's Translation of the Syriac Pesh*tta
Modern English Syriac Pesh*tta

New American Bible
Modern English 1970

New American Standard Bible
Modern English 1971 Masoretic Text, Nestle-Aland Text

New Century Version
Modern English 1991

New English Bible
Modern English 1970 Masoretic Text, Greek New Testament

New English Translation (NET Bible)
Modern English 2005 Masoretic Text, Nestle-Aland/United Bible Society Greek New Testament

New International Reader's Version
Modern English 1998 New International Version (simplified syntax, but loss of conjunctions obscures meanings)

New International Version Inclusive Language Edition
Modern English 1996 Revision of the New International Version.

New International Version
Modern English 1978 Masoretic Text, Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament (based on Westcott-Hort, Weiss and Tischendorf, 1862).

New Jerusalem Bible
Modern English 1985 From the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, with influence from the French La Bible de Jérusalem.

New Jerusalem Bible
Modern English 1985 From the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, with influence from the French La Bible de Jérusalem.

New Jewish Publication Society of America Version. Tanakh (Old Testament)
Modern English 1985 Masoretic Text

New King James Version
Modern English 1982 Masoretic Text (Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, 1983), Majority text (Hodges-Farstad, 1982)

New Life Version
Modern English 1986

New Living Translation
Modern English 1996

New Revised Standard Version
Modern English 1989 Revision of the Revised Standard Version.

New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures
Modern English 1950 (New Testament)
1960 (single volume complete Bible)
1984 (reference edition with footnotes)
Westcott and Hort's Greek New Testament, Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, Hebrew J documents, as well as various other families of Hebrew and Greek manuscripts

The Orthodox Study Bible
Modern English 2008 Adds a new translation of the LXX to an existing translation of the NKJV in a single volume.

Quaker Bible
Modern English 1764 Masoretic Text, Textus Receptus

Recovery Version of the Bible
Modern English1985 Revision of the American Standard Version and Darby Bible.

Revised Version
Modern English1885 Revision of the King James Version, but with a critical New Testament text: Westcott and Hort 1881 and Tregelles 1857

Revised Standard Version
Modern English 1952 Masoretic Text, Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament.

Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition
Modern English 1966 Revision of the Revised Standard Version.

Revised English Bible
Modern English 1987 Revision of the New English Bible.

The Scriptures
Modern English & Hebrew (Divine Names) 1993, revised 1998 & revised 2009 Masoretic Text (Biblia Hebraica), Textus Receptus Greek text
Popular Messianic Translation by the Institute for Scripture Research

Simplified English Bible
Modern English.

The Story Bible
Modern English 1971 A summary/paraphrase, by Pearl S. Buck

Taverner's Bible
Early Modern English 1539 Minor revision of Matthew's Bible

Thomson's Translation

Modern English 1808 Codex Vaticanus (according to the introduction in the reprint edition by S. F. Pells) of the Septuagint (but excluding the Apocrypha) and of the New Testament

Today's New International Version
Modern English 2005 Masoretic Text (Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, 1983), Nestle-Aland Greek text Revision of the New International Version.

Third Millennium Bible
Modern English 1998 Revision of the King James Version.

Tyndale Bible
Early Modern English 1526 (New Testament) 1530 (Pentateuch) Masoretic Text, Erasmus' third NT edition (1522), Martin Luther's 1522 German Bible. Incomplete translation. Tyndale's other Old Testament work went into the Matthew's Bible (1537).

Updated King James Version
Modern English 2004

A Voice In The Wilderness Holy Scriptures
Modern English 2003 Masoretic Text, Textus Receptus

Webster's Revision
Modern English1833 Revision of the King James Version.

Westminster Bible
Modern English 1936 Greek and Hebrew

The Work of God's Children Illustrated Bible[4]
Modern English 2010 Revision of the Challoner Revision of the Douay-Rheims Bible. Released into the public domain by The Work of God's Children (nonprofit corporation)

Wycliffe's Bible (1380)
Middle English 1380 Latin Vulgate

Wycliffe's Bible (1388)
Middle English 1388 Latin Vulgate

Young's Literal Translation
Modern English 1862 Masoretic Text, Textus Receptus

With those using the Nestle-Aland/United Bible Society Greek New Testament basically being the Westcott and Hort Alexandrian text.
 
the New World Translation (NWT)
The jehovahs witnesses bible, they are not and never have been part of any translation team, associated with any university or part of any revision team.
That you include them in with your list of suspect translations again shows that your research is flawed.
 
hello reddogs
doctrines are affected by false teaching. Changing God's truth to a lie.

Some thing may come out of a persons mouth that sounds so sweet so nice and so loving but we know people may have ulterior motives.

Take a look at the thread I I wrote about A trinity. Triune because there are three in one. God needs to witnesses to send anyone to hell he won't do it himself because he loves mankind. How is that possible? When you see you won't believe it was right in front of your face all the time.
 
Here is a good explanation on the affects of Gnosticism, "
Dr. McGiffert, speaking of Simon Magus, says: "His effort to rival and surpass Jesus very likely began after his contact with the Christians that Luke records. His religious system was apparently a SYNCRETISM of Jewish and Oriental elements" (Hasting's Dictionary of the Apostolic Church, Vol. 2, p. 497)....."

While the church at Rome was allowing ancient religious ideas and paganism to creep into its teachings, the church in Alexandria was being corrupted by Greek philosophy and constructing doctrines influenced by Plato and the Stoics:

It is seen in the writings of Clement of Alexandria head of the Catechetical School of Alexandria. He united Greek philosophical traditions with Christian doctrine. He used the term "gnostic" for Christians who had attained the deeper teaching of the Logos which he felt was a lesser form of God, he taught that Christ was not really flesh but spirit. He developed a Christian Platonism, of which objects in the everyday world are imperfect copies. He presented the goal of Christian life as deification, or assimilation into God.

He arose from Alexandria's Catechetical School and was well versed in pagan literature which it seems he used to develop his doctrines. Clement is best remembered as the teacher of Origen who followed him as head of Alexandria's Catechetical School and interpreted scripture allegorically and showed himself to be a Neo-Pythagorean, and Neo-Platonist. Like Plotinus, he wrote that the soul passes through successive stages of incarnation before eventually reaching God. He imagined even demons being reunited with God. For Origen like his teacher Clement, God was the First Principle, and Christ, the Logos, was subordinate to him. He did not believe in the ressurection and taught against that the soul died along with the body, being restored to life only at the resurrection (see soul sleep).

His works were used in the formulation of the early churches doctrines, Origen wrote about 6,000 works. A list was given by Eusebius who studied them and seems to have continued some of the false beliefs which he passed on in his writings. He followed Origen later as bishop of Caesarea and spread his ideas as seen in the further development of the Arian controversies. For instance he was involved in the dispute with Eustathius of Antioch who opposed the growing influence of Origen, including his practice of an allegorical exegesis of scripture. Eustathius perceived in Origen's theology the roots of Arianism and fought against it. He was correct facts were to show, as Eusebius was intent upon emphasizing the difference of the persona of the Trinity and maintaining the subordination of the Son (Logos, or Word) to God. The Son (Jesus), as Arianism asserted, is a creature of God. This Logos, as a derivative creature and not truly God as the Father is truly God, could therefore change (Eusebius, with most early theologians, assumed God was immutable), and he assumed a human body without altering the immutable divine Father. The relation of the Holy Spirit within the Trinity Eusebius explained similarly to that of the Son to the Father. No point of this doctrine is original with Eusebius, all is traceable to his teacher Origen. http://orderofcenturions.org/documents/ember_eusebius.html

So lets look at what Simon Magus, who Peter encountered, formed, as the Gnostics was basically a mixture of Greek Philopsophy and Ancient Mystery religion, Zoroastrianism which was from Simon's magi background, and came to be known as Gnosticism. This Gnostic line of thought had certain characteristics which had serious moral and ethical consequences. Its basic belief was that matter was essentially evil and spirit alone was good. If as they thought, matter is evil, the body is evil; and the body must be despised and held down and we see where rigid asceticism came from. So following this line, if the body is evil, it does not matter what a man does with it. Therefore, man could sate his appetites and man could use his body in the most licentious way and it makes no difference. A common characteristic was the teaching that the realization of gnosis or the esoteric or intuitive knowledge, is the way to salvation of the soul from the material world. They mixed truth with falsehoods and Jesus is identified by some Gnostic sects as an embodiment of the supreme being who became incarnate to bring gnosis to the earth and the Gnostic sects develop the belief that Jesus was merely a human who attained divinity through gnosis and taught his disciples to do the same.

Gnosticism tried to blend the new religion but ultimately was against traditional Christian beliefs and attempted to combine Paganism with Christianity. Some Gnostic groups had beliefs that often contradicted the beliefs of other Gnostic groups. The movement spread in areas controlled by the Roman Empire and especially strong in Egypt, but the one thing that they all had in common was that all of these groups departed from the truth, and the Gnostic mixed their beliefs into the manuscripts they made of the scriptures, putting changes of their particular beliefs or taking out what disagreed with it.

The movement spread in areas controlled by the Roman Empire and especially in Rome and Egypt, and here is where it gets interesting. From Egypt we get some of their ideas and beliefs that were put into corrupted manuscripts and years later two of these manuscripts appeared. These were called Vaticanus & Sinaiticus since they were somehow 'found' in the Vatican Library & a monastery in the Sinai respectively. Neither was in the original Greek language, but in a Coptic translation, an early Egyptian language. Coptic placed the origin of these two texts in the region of Alexandria, Egypt the center of the gnosticism heresy. Hence they became known collectively as the Alexandrian Codices.

So we see where the twisting of the nature Christ begins and the mindset of who was changing the meaning, and the sources that it came from..
You need to provide primary source material as evidence of these claims. For example, show from Clement of Alexandria's own writings that he was Gnostic and that he made any of these claims:

"He used the term "gnostic" for Christians who had attained the deeper teaching of the Logos which he felt was a lesser form of God, he taught that Christ was not really flesh but spirit. He developed a Christian Platonism, of which objects in the everyday world are imperfect copies. He presented the goal of Christian life as deification, or assimilation into God."
 
Hey All,
Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. I read that somewhere. So here is the test of a translation. Can you use it to lead someone to saving faith in Jesus? If you can, then the difference is not substantial. If you can't then the translation is suspect.

The new world translation, for example, changes who Jesus is. (There is one passage in the nwt that they missed, or forgot about, and that they can't deny because it is in their bible.) This negates His ability to save us from our sins. As such, it should not even be called a Bible; because the primary role of a Bible is to lead someone to Christ.


I personally like studying with the King James version. It forces me to slow down and focus on the words being used. The dictionary becomes your best study partner. When I taught Sunday School I used the New King James version because it was easier to read from, and easier for people to understand.

I also am not fond of the NIV. When I read it it feels off to me. (I know, what does off mean? ) The thing is I cannot say, "Aha! This is why! It is subtle. But it's there. I am sure part of it is King James bias. But not all of it. Thankfully, I have choices.
Keep walking everybody.
May God bless,
Taz
 
Hey All,
Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. I read that somewhere. So here is the test of a translation. Can you use it to lead someone to saving faith in Jesus? If you can, then the difference is not substantial. If you can't then the translation is suspect.

The new world translation, for example, changes who Jesus is. (There is one passage in the nwt that they missed, or forgot about, and that they can't deny because it is in their bible.) This negates His ability to save us from our sins. As such, it should not even be called a Bible; because the primary role of a Bible is to lead someone to Christ.


I personally like studying with the King James version. It forces me to slow down and focus on the words being used. The dictionary becomes your best study partner. When I taught Sunday School I used the New King James version because it was easier to read from, and easier for people to understand.

I also am not fond of the NIV. When I read it it feels off to me. (I know, what does off mean? ) The thing is I cannot say, "Aha! This is why! It is subtle. But it's there. I am sure part of it is King James bias. But not all of it. Thankfully, I have choices.
Keep walking everybody.
May God bless,
Taz
The main problems I have with the KJV are that 1) most manuscript evidence has been found since the writing of the KJV, 2) some words in it are no longer in use, and 3) other words have changed meaning. In that sense, it is possible that it could mislead people, but in the very least it will cause some confusion for which one has to consult another version anyway. I certainly wouldn't use it with either a new believer or unbeliever.

I like the 1984 NIV, as a paraphrase can actually be more accurate in the sense of better conveying what the original languages are saying. It doesn't necessarily matter if it is "word-for-word" accurate, since one language often doesn't translate directly into another and makes the translation incomprehensible. As a simple example, it's why even the KJV adds words such as "he" or ignores words such as "the;" it's simply to make the English more understandable.

I prefer the ESV as it retains a more formal equivalence where it can and switches to dynamic equivalence when necessary. And the study version, as with any decent study Bible, contains notes on why verses are "missing," gives alternate readings based on different manuscripts, and provides clarity to certain phrases or words.
 
hello reddogs
doctrines are affected by false teaching. Changing God's truth to a lie.

Some thing may come out of a persons mouth that sounds so sweet so nice and so loving but we know people may have ulterior motives.

Take a look at the thread I I wrote about A trinity. Triune because there are three in one. God needs to witnesses to send anyone to hell he won't do it himself because he loves mankind. How is that possible? When you see you won't believe it was right in front of your face all the time.
Yet many don't really look at what is there.
 
Yet many don't really look at what is there.
reddogs
Do you see what I'm seeing here,

Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree: Gal.3:13

And if a man have committed a sin worthy of death,and he be to be put to death, and thou hang him on a tree: His body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but thou shalt in any wise bury him that day; (for he that is hanged isaccursed of God;)

Paul is saying iour Lord was lied about. God was lied about.

For consider him that _b]endured such contradiction of sinners against himself, [/b]lest ye be wearied and faint in your minds. Heb 12:3

I want your incite. I cant get get any meaning from reformers who dont understand the law Paul knew so well.
Simply pounding Gal.3:13 into peoples' heads with the wrong understanding leads to heresy imo.
 
Back
Top