What's new
By:
Filters
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!

Bible Problem

Hidden In Him said:
Not so. What actually happened was that in order to keep the scriptures from being manipulated by those who refuted the Deity of Christ, later church scribes started adding text to "clarify" the positions of the church. I agree with orthodoxy, so I understand the motivation, but in the process of doing this they added things that only convoluted the text, making it obvious that the latter additions were not part of the original.

I don't come down hard on orthodox people like yourselves because of it, as they are a defense against heretical trolls like the one who just responded to you, but you are mistaken. Despite well-meaning intent, ends do not always justify the means, and the MT is a corruption.
Click to expand...
We can only pray that God is guiding us according to His will! Of course, which Bible one uses (many Christians use no Bile to much extent) does not effect salvation, because it is not essential doctrine (like believing in Christ; believing in His resurrection, etc.); but it will effect one's growth in the Lord Jesus (esp. if you're not reading much Scripture).
 
netchaplain said:
We can only pray that God is guiding us according to His will! Of course, which Bible one uses (many Christians use no Bile to much extent) does not effect salvation, because it is not essential doctrine (like believing in Christ; believing in His resurrection, etc.); but it will effect one's growth in the Lord Jesus (esp. if you're not reading much Scripture).
Click to expand...

We agree, and good post!
 
It can be trustingly assumed that God's Word would be contained in the right translation, as He would not withhold any of His Words to us. It just has to be plenary first (Mat 4:4), even though the translation isn't perfect, the Word of God within the translation is; this is how God works--using the sinful for good. He uses believers for good, though the "old man" still indwells them!

When people begin to doubt the Word of God concerning plenary inspiration, it reveals misunderstanding, and entreats disuse of the Word. God has relayed all His Word, and there is nothing more and nothing less for Him to show us in this life!
 
Last edited:
It’s my understanding that the word “perfect” concerning a translation is mostly in reference to being complete, entire, and plenary. Thus, only translations derived from that majority of extant manuscripts contain all of Word of God (Mat 4:4)! Studying a translation which has much less manuscript evidence cannot affect one’s salvation; but it will affect one’s spiritual growth in the Lord Jesus (Eph 5:14).
 
“The doctrine of preservation does not guarantee the preservation of the autographs, for they perished within a few years after their writings. Neither does it guarantee the accuracy of the copies, because errant men copied them. It does guarantee that the complete contents of the infallible Scriptures have been preserved, not in any one manuscript, but somewhere within the manuscript tradition!” –D.O.Fuller, D.D.
 
The king James companion bible is from the original 1611 king James bible. It has Hebrew and Greek texts. In lamentations chapter 2, adversary is properly the eye. In first chronicles chapter 2:55 . The kenites are scribes, and messed with the Hebrew translation. In ezra chapter 6 or 7, the Levi priests were no where to be found. The nethinims, the kenites, took over as scribes.
King James companion bible is the correct tool to study the bible.
 
netchaplain said:
Which translation of the Bible do you use? Many are unaware that the manuscripts used for the modern translations are highly spurious, because of the numerous differences between them and the Traditional Text (TT). The manuscripts used for the TT (Majority Text, or Textus Receptus, or Received Text) are much latter (5 century and latter) than those used for the modern translations (MT). The MT manuscripts were not used for copying purposes like those of the TT, because they had too many errors and therefore were rejected and did not wear out. This is what allowed the modern text to gain much ascendancy in popularity, due to their antiquity (3-4th century). As there are many differences between the manuscripts use for the MT, due to omissions, transpositions and interpolations, the early church would not use them (Vaticanus, Sinaticus and Alexandrinus).

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

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

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

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

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

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

God bless and always guide us to truth!

NC
Click to expand...
The textual discussion is a little deeper than the KJVO folk (eg Gail Riplinger) tend to think. Yep, I’ve read their stuff in bucket loads, and I know they bang on about ‘omissions’, which alternatively can be suggested to be ‘additions’. The TRs (there is not only one TR) have both omissions and additions to the authentic text, but textual theory was in its early days, and access to available MSS was highly limited—see how often Stephanus & Beza disagreed with each other, and even kept changing their Greek texts. The KJV created its own TR from a number of sources.

I’d accept even the KJV & NWT as viable versions, howbeit neither ideal. John Wesley was far from satisfied with what was available in his days, even textually speaking, and no translation/‌version can ever be perfect—that’s how language works. However, for general study of texts, my first 10 goto English versions (EVV) are the CEB/‌CEV/‌ERV/‌LEB/‌NABRE/‌NCV/‌NIV/‌NKJV/‌NLT/‌NRSV.

Your title, [Bible Problem], is somewhat misleading. You are not talking about a problem in or/and with the Bible, but problems in or/and with Bible translation. Erazmus (holding to trinitarianism) had a serious reluctance to write the KJV’s 1 Jhn.5:7 into his Greek text, but was conned into it. Trinitarianism isn’t based on that text, and Church Fathers happily explored trinitarianism without it.

Bible versions topic is a deep rabbit hole. I am happy to send you, or anyone on this thread, a link to a free PDF of The Word’s Gone Global, on this topic, if asked via private message.
 
Anaphora said:
The king James companion bible is from the original 1611 king James bible. It has Hebrew and Greek texts. In lamentations chapter 2, adversary is properly the eye. In first chronicles chapter 2:55 . The kenites are scribes, and messed with the Hebrew translation. In ezra chapter 6 or 7, the Levi priests were no where to be found. The nethinims, the kenites, took over as scribes.
King James companion bible is the correct tool to study the bible.
Click to expand...
Hi and thanks for you reply! I think KJV prior to 1666 contained the Apocrypha, could be mistaken though about that. But shortly after this they realized it was not part of the cannon and ceased to use it.

You chose the correct Bible translation. Spiritual growth can only come from studying God's Word and applying it by the Spirit! Only the NKJV and a few others like it contain the entire Word. No other modern translation can claim this because of the hundreds of omissions (Mat 4:4); what's just as bad is the changing (transpositions) and adding (interpolations) of much of Scripture.

God bless!
 
netchaplain said:
It can be trustingly assumed that God's Word would be contained in the right translation, as He would not withhold any of His Words to us. It just has to be plenary first (Mat 4:4), even though the translation isn't perfect, the Word of God within the translation is; this is how God works--using the sinful for good. He uses believers for good, though the "old man" still indwells them!
Click to expand...
The KJV of the bible teaches that the old man doesn't "indwell us".
It is written..."Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin." (Rom 6:6)
Gal 5:24 concurs..."And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts."
Which version of the KJ says the old man indwells us?
netchaplain said:
When people begin to doubt the Word of God concerning plenary inspiration, it reveals misunderstanding, and entreats disuse of the Word. God has relayed all His Word, and there is nothing more and nothing less for Him to show us in this life!
Click to expand...
 
Hopeful 2 said:
The KJV of the bible teaches that the old man doesn't "indwell us".
It is written..."Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin." (Rom 6:6)
Gal 5:24 concurs..."And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts."
Which version of the KJ says the old man indwells us?
Click to expand...
Hi and thanks for your reply! We could ask which translation says that the old man is "dead"? If the old man was dead the Christian would no longer sin; and if one denies of sinning, he is ignorant of a highly significant truth (1Jn 1:8).

"Notwithstanding believers are cleansed from their sins by the blood of Christ, yet they are not without sin; no man is without sin: this is not only true of all men, as they come into the world, being conceived in sin, and shaped in iniquity, and of all that are in a state of undegeneracy, and of God's elect, while in such a state, but even of all regenerated and sanctified persons in this life; as appears by the ingenuous confessions of sin made by the saints in all ages." -John Gill

"The object of the apostle is to show that it is implied in the very nature of the gospel that we are sinners, and that if, on any pretense, we denied that fact, we utterly deceived ourselves." -Albert Barnes
 
It doesn't matter what translation one choices to use, but that the Holy Spirit is teaching you truth exposing the errors of man that can be in any version.

1John 2:24 Let that therefore abide in you, which ye have heard from the beginning. If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye also shall continue in the Son, and in the Father.
1John 2:25 And this is the promise that he hath promised us, even eternal life.
1John 2:26 These things have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you.
1John 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

I believe even if we did not have the written word to read the Holy Spirit would still teach us all truths in the knowledge of God's salvation through Christ Jesus.
 
for_his_glory said:
It doesn't matter what translation one choices to use, but that the Holy Spirit is teaching you truth exposing the errors of man that can be in any version.

I believe even if we did not have the written word to read the Holy Spirit would still teach us all truths in the knowledge of God's salvation through Christ Jesus.
Click to expand...
There are unintentional errors, and then there are intentional errors. Much of all the modern translations are a ploy to disunify the Body of Christ. With their omissions, transpositions (changing the order of words) and interpolations (adding new words to change original thought) it keeps one from growing in Christ. Just being short on Scripture will do the job, but they hide a lot of the Word through all these means.

I definite that it's the devil's continued attack on God's Word (and many great scholars also) from when he began with the first doubt, "Yea hath God said" (Gen 3:1). I believe it's too late for correcting this problem, for many do not read much Word anyway. I also believe that the Body will be at its weakest maturity in Christ on His final advent. But He will bring all up to par.

The reason why these translations have recently appeared is because of discovering a few old manuscripts, and their antiquity has swept most off their feet. These are copies of manuscripts that were never used because the early scribes rejected copies that were excessively indifferent from most of the existing copies. It's also been established by learned scholars that Gnostics had their hands in these manuscripts, and is why there are many omissions related to Christ Deity.

One example is John 3:13, where they omitted the phrase "who is in heaven." Here Christ is reveling His omniscience by saying He was in heaven at the same time He was on earth. To me, the worse damage to the Word is the omissions. Scripture often repeats itself for our encouragement and learning. Thus one may think it innocent to remove Scripture that is taught elsewhere (Mat 4:4).

Since many do not read much of the Word (and more so because of translations which they are not sure which to read) they don't notice the multitude of intentional errors. It's like the boiling frog syndrome. Put it in boiling water and it jumps out, but put it in warn water and it stays in; the you gradually turn up the heat until it is boiled alive.
 
1 John 5:7 and 8
Comment
The Spirit is the Father who is a witness to these things, and the water is our Baptism into the New Covenant, and the blood is Christ's sacrifice on the stake. These three are a testimony unto our salvation.



1 John 5:7-8 New International Version (NIV)
7 For there are three that testify: 8 the[a] Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.



Footnotes:

  1. 1 John 5:8 Late manuscripts of the Vulgate testify in heaven: the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. 8 And there are three that testify on earth: the (not found in any Greek manuscript before the fourteenth century)

The Trinity doctrine is a man made doctrine that comes from Paganism.
 
THINK! said:
whatswrongwiththispicture_orig.jpg
Click to expand...
The word Godhead does not exist in the original text. "I am" is not a Hebrew word, it is AIT.

2 Thessalonians 2:10
and all the ways that wickedness deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved.

Trinitarianism was never taught by the prophets or priesthood. How is that recent Pagan coverts to Christianity reasoned that God was a trinity? After all, they already had a multitude of Pagan trinity's.
 
CherubRam said:
The word Godhead does not exist in the original text. "I am" is not a Hebrew word, it is AIT.

2 Thessalonians 2:10
and all the ways that wickedness deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved.

Trinitarianism was never taught by the prophets or priesthood. How is that recent Pagan coverts to Christianity reasoned that God was a trinity? After all, they already had a multitude of Pagan trinity's.
Click to expand...
So you are saying the Bible teaches a false doctrine on the Trinity/Deity of Christ!!!

Then you need to take a black marker and black out these scriptures as you say they are from paganism.

Scriptures that reference Jesus being referred to as God:
John 1:1-14; John 10:30; Romans 9:5; Colossians 2:9; Hebrews 1:8, 9; 1 John 5:7, 8, 20; 1 Corinthians 8:6; 2 Corinthians 3:17; 13:14; Isaiah 9:6; 44:6; Luke 1:35; Matthew 1:23; 28:19; John 14:16, 17; Genesis 1:1, 2 (cross reference John 1:1-14); 1 Corinthians 12:4-6; Ephesians 4:4-6; Colossians 1:15-17; John 14:9-11; Philippians 2:5-8; Rev 1:8

Scriptures that reference the Holy Spirit as being God:
Psalms 139:7, 8; John 14:17; 16:13; Isaiah 40:13; 1 Corinthians 2:10, 11; Zechariah 4:6; Luke 1:35; Ephesians 4:4-6; Romans 5:5; 1 Corinthians 6:19; Ephesians 1:13; 1 Thessalonians 1:5; Titus 3:5; 2 Peter 1:21; Jude 1:20
 
for_his_glory said:
So you are saying the Bible teaches a false doctrine on the Trinity/Deity of Christ!!!

Then you need to take a black marker and black out these scriptures as you say they are from paganism.

Scriptures that reference Jesus being referred to as God:
John 1:1-14; John 10:30; Romans 9:5; Colossians 2:9; Hebrews 1:8, 9; 1 John 5:7, 8, 20; 1 Corinthians 8:6; 2 Corinthians 3:17; 13:14; Isaiah 9:6; 44:6; Luke 1:35; Matthew 1:23; 28:19; John 14:16, 17; Genesis 1:1, 2 (cross reference John 1:1-14); 1 Corinthians 12:4-6; Ephesians 4:4-6; Colossians 1:15-17; John 14:9-11; Philippians 2:5-8; Rev 1:8

Scriptures that reference the Holy Spirit as being God:
Psalms 139:7, 8; John 14:17; 16:13; Isaiah 40:13; 1 Corinthians 2:10, 11; Zechariah 4:6; Luke 1:35; Ephesians 4:4-6; Romans 5:5; 1 Corinthians 6:19; Ephesians 1:13; 1 Thessalonians 1:5; Titus 3:5; 2 Peter 1:21; Jude 1:20
Click to expand...
Yahwah is a Holy Spirit, and He is called Holy Spirit. "Holy Spirit" is one of His many titles.

In regards to:
"Scriptures that reference Jesus being referred to as God:"
If correctly translated those would read that Christ is "divine," "a god," and a (elohiym / god of The Living One.)

Corruptions of text do not count as biblical truth.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top