Proof of What Modern Bible Translators Have Done to Corrupt Newer Bible Translations

[DavP]

Firstly... the debate about Bible translations today is NOT... simply about some "King James only" idea. That term is used by those who promote... the newer corrupt Bible versions.

The 1611 KJV Bible was NOT... the very first Bible translation. There were Bible translations prior to 1611, and Greek and Latin texts, and they also used the Majority Greek text, which amounts to 5,000+ Greek manuscripts. Erasmus in the 1500's put together the Textus Receptus from those various Greek and Latin texts, and the Textus Receptus became the basis for New Testament translations, up until British scholars Wescott and Hort in the 1880's submitted their own revised Greek text from Alexandrian manuscripts which became the basis of the newer modern Textual Criticism school, which is where the modern translations of today are derived. Erasmus was familiar with certain of the Alexandrian texts which modern Criticism uses, and Erasmus rejected use of them, deeming them less accurate because of so much disagreement between those texts.

Desiderius Erasmus Textus Receptus Bibles

The Real Story of Erasmus and the Textus Receptus

www.textusreceptusbibles.com

See the following about how Wescott and Hort substituted their new Greek text of 1881 over the 1500's Textus Receptus.

Another point to note, is that the New King James Version (NKJV) that Thomas Nelson publishers own, because they created it through a revision committee, also uses portions of the so-called 'Criticial text' from Wescott and Hort's new Greek translation from the Alexandrian Greek manuscripts. Thus the NKJV Bible New Testament part is NOT... a pure translation from the Textus Receptus based on the Traditional Greek texts which the 1611 KJV translators used. The Alexandrian texts are foreign to the original 1611 KJV. So in reality with the New King James Version, you are NOT getting a truly authentic KJV Bible.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Firstly... the debate about Bible translations today is NOT... simply about some "King James only" idea. That term is used by those who promote... the newer corrupt Bible versions.

The 1611 KJV Bible was NOT... the very first Bible translation. There were Bible translations prior to 1611, and Greek and Latin texts, and they also used the Majority Greek text, which amounts to 5,000+ Greek manuscripts. Erasmus in the 1500's put together the Textus Receptus from those various Greek and Latin texts, and the Textus Receptus became the basis for New Testament translations, up until British scholars Wescott and Hort in the 1880's submitted their own revised Greek text from Alexandrian manuscripts which became the basis of the newer modern Textual Criticism school, which is where the modern translations of today are derived. Erasmus was familiar with certain of the Alexandrian texts which modern Criticism uses, and Erasmus rejected use of them, deeming them less accurate because of so much disagreement between those texts.

Desiderius Erasmus Textus Receptus Bibles

The Real Story of Erasmus and the Textus Receptus

www.textusreceptusbibles.com

See the following about how Wescott and Hort substituted their new Greek text of 1881 over the 1500's Textus Receptus.

Another point to note, is that the New King James Version (NKJV) that Thomas Nelson publishers own, because they created it through a revision committee, also uses portions of the so-called 'Criticial text' from Wescott and Hort's new Greek translation from the Alexandrian Greek manuscripts. Thus the NKJV Bible New Testament part is NOT... a pure translation from the Textus Receptus based on the Traditional Greek texts which the 1611 KJV translators used. The Alexandrian texts are foreign to the original 1611 KJV. So in reality with the New King James Version, you are NOT getting a truly authentic KJV Bible.

1. What is wrong with Alexandria?
2. There is very little evidence for an early Byzantine Greek text outside of the Gospels. Do you know when the Byzantine empire existed?

Like most everything. There are good things about the Alexandrian sources and bad things. There are good things about the Byzantine tradition and bad things. These are nothing more than the choices of men.

 

[DavP]

1. What is wrong with Alexandria?

Did you watch the above Bridge To Babylon video? Lot of the detail is there of the difference between what is known as the Traditional Greek text (i.e., the Majority Text, which still make up the majority of Greek New Testament manuscripts, and in the thousands), vs. the Alexandrian Greek text. Wescott and Hort claimed the Alexandrian text were older, and better, yet the Codex Sinaiticus was only discovered in two parts, the first part in the 1840's by Tischendorf in a waste basket at a Greek monastery, the 2nd part in the 1850s (questionable origin). And the Codex Vaticanus was only discovered in the Vatican in 1475. Copies of those text are rare, and the ones that do exist show little usage. Thus the true origin of both Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus is doubtful. Whereas, even though the Majority Greek text which make up the majority of Greek manuscripts are not as old, they show a lot of usage.

And that doubt does not concur with God's promise to preserve His Word throughout all generations.

In contrast, the Traditional Greek text, called the Majority text because they make up over 5,000+ Greek New Testament manuscripts that still exist today, are not as old, but they are referenced by the early Church as going back to at least the 4th century A.D.:

"The earliest undisputed Church Father to witness to a Byzantine text-type in substantial New Testament quotations is John Chrysostom (c. 349 – 407); although the fragmentary surviving works of Asterius the Sophist († 341) have also been considered to conform to the Byzantine text.[2] It has however been argued that the version of the Gospel of Matthew used by Basil the Great (c. 330 – 379) is the earliest substantial witness to the Byzantine text type, predating Chrysostom." (from Wikipedia, Byzantine Text-Type)


What's was wrong with the Christian school at Alexandria, Egypt? It was surrounded by pagan Neoplatonists which with some there that crept in, like Origen who was excommunicated by the early Church because of his treating God's Word like one huge allegory. This is actually what the Alexandrian text is guilty of, i.e., muddying the waters of the Traditional text which the early Church used. This is why the new 1881 Wescott and Hort Greek revision they did from Alexandrian manuscripts often removes the Diety of Jesus Christ.

Manuscript Evidence Archives - Preserved Word Ministries

The Bible proclaims that God has preserved His Word. Explore the evidence of the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts in search of the true text of God's Word. See that the true text is found in the Byzantine Manuscripts, from which the “Textus Receptus” and the King James Version came. The Alexandrian...

www.preservedword.com

 

[Studyman]

Firstly... the debate about Bible translations today is NOT... simply about some "King James only" idea. That term is used by those who promote... the newer corrupt Bible versions.

The 1611 KJV Bible was NOT... the very first Bible translation. There were Bible translations prior to 1611, and Greek and Latin texts, and they also used the Majority Greek text, which amounts to 5,000+ Greek manuscripts. Erasmus in the 1500's put together the Textus Receptus from those various Greek and Latin texts, and the Textus Receptus became the basis for New Testament translations, up until British scholars Wescott and Hort in the 1880's submitted their own revised Greek text from Alexandrian manuscripts which became the basis of the newer modern Textual Criticism school, which is where the modern translations of today are derived. Erasmus was familiar with certain of the Alexandrian texts which modern Criticism uses, and Erasmus rejected use of them, deeming them less accurate because of so much disagreement between those texts.

Desiderius Erasmus Textus Receptus Bibles

The Real Story of Erasmus and the Textus Receptus

www.textusreceptusbibles.com

See the following about how Wescott and Hort substituted their new Greek text of 1881 over the 1500's Textus Receptus.

Another point to note, is that the New King James Version (NKJV) that Thomas Nelson publishers own, because they created it through a revision committee, also uses portions of the so-called 'Criticial text' from Wescott and Hort's new Greek translation from the Alexandrian Greek manuscripts. Thus the NKJV Bible New Testament part is NOT... a pure translation from the Textus Receptus based on the Traditional Greek texts which the 1611 KJV translators used. The Alexandrian texts are foreign to the original 1611 KJV. So in reality with the New King James Version, you are NOT getting a truly authentic KJV Bible.

I think it is a mistake to believe that God didn't preserve His truths in English translations. Granted, a person would need to study the Bible as a whole, in order to overcome some of the inconsistencies from one translation to another. But the main focus and "instruction in God's Righteousness" exists in Every Translation that I have found.

Jesus warned of "many men" who would come in His Name and call Him Lord but would deceive "many". But HE never warned that the Holy Scriptures could not be trusted "for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works."

I would be way more cautious of modern u-tube videos and the preaching of man, than the Holy Scriptures themselves.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Did you watch the above Bridge To Babylon video? Lot of the detail is there of the difference between what is known as the Traditional Greek text (i.e., the Majority Text, which still make up the majority of Greek New Testament manuscripts, and in the thousands), vs. the Alexandrian Greek text. Wescott and Hort claimed the Alexandrian text were older, and better, yet the Codex Sinaiticus was only discovered in two parts, the first part in the 1840's by Tischendorf in a waste basket at a Greek monastery, the 2nd part in the 1850s (questionable origin). And the Codex Vaticanus was only discovered in the Vatican in 1475. Copies of those text are rare, and the ones that do exist show little usage. Thus the true origin of both Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus is doubtful. Whereas, even though the Majority Greek text which make up the majority of Greek manuscripts are not as old, they show a lot of usage.

And that doubt does not concur with God's promise to preserve His Word throughout all generations.

In contrast, the Traditional Greek text, called the Majority text because they make up over 5,000+ Greek New Testament manuscripts that still exist today, are not as old, but they are referenced by the early Church as going back to at least the 4th century A.D.:

"The earliest undisputed Church Father to witness to a Byzantine text-type in substantial New Testament quotations is John Chrysostom (c. 349 – 407); although the fragmentary surviving works of Asterius the Sophist († 341) have also been considered to conform to the Byzantine text.[2] It has however been argued that the version of the Gospel of Matthew used by Basil the Great (c. 330 – 379) is the earliest substantial witness to the Byzantine text type, predating Chrysostom." (from Wikipedia, Byzantine Text-Type)


What's was wrong with the Christian school at Alexandria, Egypt? It was surrounded by pagan Neoplatonists which with some there that crept in, like Origen who was excommunicated by the early Church because of his treating God's Word like one huge allegory. This is actually what the Alexandrian text is guilty of, i.e., muddying the waters of the Traditional text which the early Church used. This is why the new 1881 Wescott and Hort Greek revision they did from Alexandrian manuscripts often removes the Diety of Jesus Christ.

Manuscript Evidence Archives - Preserved Word Ministries

The Bible proclaims that God has preserved His Word. Explore the evidence of the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts in search of the true text of God's Word. See that the true text is found in the Byzantine Manuscripts, from which the “Textus Receptus” and the King James Version came. The Alexandrian...

www.preservedword.com

I'm not going to watch your video. I don't need to. I intimately know the evidence. I don't need your propaganda. If you want to use something from the video and make it your own argument, then detail in this thread. I'm not going to waste my time dealing with the video to only have you ultimately say that is not what you believe. Trust me, I don't know the times I had this happen to me. I'm not going to do it. In fact, you're wanting to limit the discussion by using such tactics.

1. 5000 thousand identical copies of a manuscript containing mistakes does not set the standard for a perfect text. All you have are 5000 copies that have the same mistakes.

2. It is nonsense to claim the Alexandrian texts remove the Deity of Christ. I've argued from the Deity of Christ most of my adult life. The KJV never helped me in that discussion nor have the Alexandrian manuscripts hindered me. I probably know this subject better than you do.

3. The Byzantine Empire is late. Yes. The 4th century. Codex Alexandrinus (which I treasure) contains the Byzantine editions in the Gospels. There is a reason for this, they were the earliest manuscripts to be spread throughout the known world. However, the same can not be said of the Epistle evidence. Which is why I prefer a blended text type model in the final product.

 

[praise_yeshua]

I think it is a mistake to believe that God didn't preserve His truths in English translations. Granted, a person would need to study the Bible as a whole, in order to overcome some of the inconsistencies from one translation to another. But the main focus and "instruction in God's Righteousness" exists in Every Translation that I have found.

Jesus warned of "many men" who would come in His Name and call Him Lord but would deceive "many". But HE never warned that the Holy Scriptures could not be trusted "for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works."

I would be way more cautious of modern u-tube videos and the preaching of man, than the Holy Scriptures themselves.

You're leaving out the canonical process in your comments. I'm rather certain you have a different canon than most.

 

[Studyman]

You're leaving out the canonical process in your comments. I'm rather certain you have a different canon than most.

I believe the scriptures have certain undeniable truths that even a child, seeking simple Biblical truth, can understand. The tradition of adopting differing "processes" regarding the study of scriptures, is a way in my view, to secure a predetermined theology, philosophy, regulation or dogma of religious man. I am not interested in securing popular religious tradition or philosophy. Therefore, it seems prudent to just let the Scriptures interpret themselves, without the influence of other "Canons".

Canon; A word never mentioned in the holy scriptures is defined by men to mean.

a: a regulation or dogma decreed by a church council
b : a provision of canon law

Since God is the Head of the Jesus of the Bible, and Jesus is the Head of those members of God's Church, it seems prudent to secure my understanding of God and HIS Church, through "their council". Not from the regulation or dogma from the various church councils of this world.

Paul puts it this way.

2 Tim. 3: 12 Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.

13 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.

14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;

15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

There are "many" who come in Christ's Name, who believe I must adopt the "canonical process" and adopt one of this world's "many" differing "Church councils", in order to know God and His Son. But Paul doesn't teach this at all. The only Scriptures that existed at this time in history, had nothing to do with Catholics, or her protestant daughters, nor the "regulation or dogma" these "church Councils" created. But Paul was influenced negatively by the "regulation or dogma" the church councils of his time had decreed. "We have a LAW, and by OUR LAW He should die".


Of course, all of these differing "Church Councils" from the Pharisees to modern religions of this world we were placed in, believe that the "regulation or dogma" of their "Church Councils" is from God.

But both Jesus and Paul warned us about this very thing over and over.

You and I's disagreement regarding what LAW the Pharisees were Zealous for is a perfect example of this influence.

According to the "regulation or dogma" of the Church council you have adopted and are promoting, the Pharisees were walking in and promoting the Laws of God, "Blameless".

But according to the "Council of God's Church", whose Priest is the Lord's Christ, the Pharisees were not promoting or walking in God's Law, rather, their church council had created their own "regulation or dogma" (Canon) and had Rejected God's Law.

Because you have adopted the "canon" of this world's religions, and view scriptures through this world's "canonical process", you cannot accept the clear simple truth about the religious sect of the Pharisees who "taught for doctrines the commandments of men". And instead, are rejecting the Christ's Words, in order to secure and preserve the "regulation or dogma" of your church council, namely "The Pharisees were obedient to God, Blameless in HIS Law".

When the simple truth that even a child seeking truth can understand, is this "And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.

As a result, you remain zealous for God, but not according to knowledge.

Now if I had graduated from the Prinston Theological Seminary, or the Moravian theological Seminary, or had a masters from the Moody Bible Institute, you might consider the Scriptures I post.

But since I'm a nobody, you dismiss the scriptures I post. Which is fine, really. I'm only pointing it out for your sake, and the sakes of those reading along, not mine.

As a result of these things, I think it is a mistake to believe that God didn't preserve His necessary Truths in English Translations of the Bible. This belief would lead men to seek the truth from the religious men of this world. The very thing Jesus and Paul warned about over and over.

 

[praise_yeshua]

I believe the scriptures have certain undeniable truths that even a child, seeking simple Biblical truth, can understand. The tradition of adopting differing "processes" regarding the study of scriptures, is a way in my view, to secure a predetermined theology, philosophy, regulation or dogma of religious man. I am not interested in securing popular religious tradition or philosophy. Therefore, it seems prudent to just let the Scriptures interpret themselves, without the influence of other "Canons".

Canon; A word never mentioned in the holy scriptures is defined by men to mean.

a: a regulation or dogma decreed by a church council
b : a provision of canon law

Since God is the Head of the Jesus of the Bible, and Jesus is the Head of those members of God's Church, it seems prudent to secure my understanding of God and HIS Church, through "their council". Not from the regulation or dogma from the various church councils of this world.

Paul puts it this way.

2 Tim. 3: 12 Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.

13 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.

14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;

15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

There are "many" who come in Christ's Name, who believe I must adopt the "canonical process" and adopt one of this world's "many" differing "Church councils", in order to know God and His Son. But Paul doesn't teach this at all. The only Scriptures that existed at this time in history, had nothing to do with Catholics, or her protestant daughters, nor the "regulation or dogma" these "church Councils" created. But Paul was influenced negatively by the "regulation or dogma" the church councils of his time had decreed. "We have a LAW, and by OUR LAW He should die".


Of course, all of these differing "Church Councils" from the Pharisees to modern religions of this world we were placed in, believe that the "regulation or dogma" of their "Church Councils" is from God.

But both Jesus and Paul warned us about this very thing over and over.

You and I's disagreement regarding what LAW the Pharisees were Zealous for is a perfect example of this influence.

According to the "regulation or dogma" of the Church council you have adopted and are promoting, the Pharisees were walking in and promoting the Laws of God, "Blameless".

But according to the "Council of God's Church", whose Priest is the Lord's Christ, the Pharisees were not promoting or walking in God's Law, rather, their church council had created their own "regulation or dogma" (Canon) and had Rejected God's Law.

Because you have adopted the "canon" of this world's religions, and view scriptures through this world's "canonical process", you cannot accept the clear simple truth about the religious sect of the Pharisees who "taught for doctrines the commandments of men". And instead, are rejecting the Christ's Words, in order to secure and preserve the "regulation or dogma" of your church council, namely "The Pharisees were obedient to God, Blameless in HIS Law".

When the simple truth that even a child seeking truth can understand, is this "And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.

As a result, you remain zealous for God, but not according to knowledge.

Now if I had graduated from the Prinston Theological Seminary, or the Moravian theological Seminary, or had a masters from the Moody Bible Institute, you might consider the Scriptures I post.

But since I'm a nobody, you dismiss the scriptures I post. Which is fine, really. I'm only pointing it out for your sake, and the sakes of those reading along, not mine.

As a result of these things, I think it is a mistake to believe that God didn't preserve His necessary Truths in English Translations of the Bible. This belief would lead men to seek the truth from the religious men of this world. The very thing Jesus and Paul warned about over and over.

All this and no answer.....

Why did you not look for the definition of "Biblical Canon"?

 

[Fred]

2. It is nonsense to claim the Alexandrian texts remove the Deity of Christ.

Yes!

 

[DavP]

I think it is a mistake to believe that God didn't preserve His truths in English translations.

I believe that too.

That's why the long gap of time since the Alexandrian text was found does not align with God's promise to preserve His Word unto all... generations. So it's not simply about how old manuscripts are, it's about how wide and long of a usage they've had. The Traditional text does show that preservation, even as evidenced by thousands of copies made, and quotes from them by the early Church fathers, which shows the copies align with those Traditional text at least back to the 4th century A.D.

Granted, a person would need to study the Bible as a whole, in order to overcome some of the inconsistencies from one translation to another. But the main focus and "instruction in God's Righteousness" exists in Every Translation that I have found.

And I found 'modern' Bible translations based on the W&H Alexandrian text remove associations of the Deity with Jesus Christ. Apostle John showed that those who refuse to believe that God came in the flesh as Jesus Christ are antichrists (1 John 4:3).

Jesus warned of "many men" who would come in His Name and call Him Lord but would deceive "many". But HE never warned that the Holy Scriptures could not be trusted "for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works."

You apparently haven't read Revelation 22 then, which warns about those who take away or add to the Scriptures, with their part in the book of life taken away by God. The existence of that warning in itself is enough to show that some men would... try to alter His Word of Truth.

I would be way more cautious of modern u-tube videos and the preaching of man, than the Holy Scriptures themselves.

That goes for anything, even the many junk Christian novels and 13 book Left-Behind series and movies peddeled at Christian bookstores. Even Forums like this one.

But when historical documentation by past history Christian Bible scholars, and documentation by modern Christian Bible scholars are given in a YouTube video, it means one has to perk up and pay attention, and then must verify. If it cannot be verified, then it's heresay. If it can, then it is documented evidence.

 

[DavP]

I'm not going to watch your video. I don't need to. I intimately know the evidence. I don't need your propaganda.

That Bridge To Babylon documentary is not propaganda. It is documented evidence. For you to call it propaganda without even watching it tells us how you prefer to throw out BIAS instead of sticking to a love of the Truth. Thanks for revealing that about yourself; and another one bites the dust to my IGNORE LIST.

 

[praise_yeshua]

I believe that too.

That's why the long gap of time since the Alexandrian text was found does not align with God's promise to preserve His Word

Then make the choice to establish this argument with the Scriptures. Do you think this is the first time any of us have heard a Psalm 12:6-7 argument?

I remind you that the KJV didn't even exist when David wrote what we reference as Psalm 12....

FYI....Jerome couldn't even translate all the "psalms" in the Vulgate from Hebrew sources. They didn't exist for him to reference. He had to use Greek sources. Greek manuscripts of "Psalm 12" are significantly different than what you believe is "preserved".

Such positions as this come from a very arrogant "place". It really silly to believe that YOU have perfection when so many generations obviously haven't.

BTW... "mizmór" doesn't have a direct translation from Hebrew to English that equals 'Psalms". You might want to consider such things when you make these types of claims.

 

[praise_yeshua]

That Bridge To Babylon documentary is not propaganda. It is documented evidence. For you to call it propaganda without even watching it tells us how you prefer to throw out BIAS instead of sticking to a love of the Truth. Thanks for revealing that about yourself; and another one bites the dust to my IGNORE LIST.

See the requirement of KJVOists? You have to view their videos or you get put on "ignore"?

 

[Behold]

Q.) Who created the : "I hate the KJV" = cult?

Does anyone know who this devil is? His name?

So, Here is what i do....
Try it for yourself.
I use the KJV to determine if a new bible is good or if its Trash.

I use other versions also.. in my study..... absolutely,
Now see there... some of you had me already JUDGED.....didnt you?
You jumped too quick.., so, put your finger pointing judge-mentalism away for now..
You can bring it out later... as your need be.

I mostly use 90%.... :: what is in the photo i posted down below......check it out.

So, how do i find out if a new bible is Trash?
I use 2 verses to discover it...... in other words.... i see if these verses are missing or if they are ruined in a new bible, and if so, that bible gets to rest at the bottom of the Bird Cage, or similar., page by page.

Let me show you the 2 verses..

Now, im not going to post the number, the chapter, because if you are a REAL student of the bible, (of the word,) then when you listen to a teacher like me, who "talks verses", you'll know what im doing, and you'll recognize the verses.
If you however, don't study the bible, but only DEVOUR your commentaries, then you are not a student of the Bible., are you..

Now, if these 2 verses are not just like this in your NT< then your bible has some PROBLEMS.

And one of the worst is the NIV.

Now, here are the 2 verses, and they must be stated like im posting them, or the "new" bible is trying to hide doctrine, or change truth.

Satan did that when talking to EVE, and "new bibles" are the same, in many cases...

These 2.

1.) "God was manifested in the flesh"... Not "HE" was manifested in the Flesh.

Check your bible.

And..

2.) "God is A Spirit".... not "God is spirit".

See those 2 ??... They are BIGGIES, and if your "bible" does not state the verses correctly, as ive shown you, then you bible is going to do that to a lot more Bible DOCTRINE also....
Believe it.
Its a fact
-

 

[praise_yeshua]

1.) "God was manifested in the flesh"... Not "HE" was manifested in the Flesh.

Check your bible.

And..

2.) "God is A Spirit".... not "God is spirit".

See those 2 ??... They are BIGGIES, and if your "bible" does not state the verses correctly, as ive shown you, then you bible is going to do that to a lot more Bible DOCTRINE also....
Believe it.
Its a fact
-

I hope you realize that the TR only has "theos pneuma" in John 4:24. The translators chose the words you're demanding.

Also, "God" is understood in most editions that do not explicitly reference "theos" in 1 Timothy 3:16. You need to read again. Context to "He" is "mystery of godliness".

 

[TedT]

Origen who was excommunicated by the early Church because of his treating God's Word like one huge allegory

Origen was a first rate thinker and writer but his Christology was bunk, sigh.

 

[Fred]

See those 2 ??... They are BIGGIES, and if your "bible" does not state the verses correctly, as ive shown you, then you bible is going to do that to a lot more Bible DOCTRINE also....
Believe it.
Its a fact

Why do many of the newer versions have "Me" in John 14:14 and the KJV doesn't when praying to Jesus is a powerful proof that He is God?

 

[DavP]

Yes!

No, it is not nonsense...

LEGEND: reference to the phrase 'Critical text' means the modern Greek text from Wescott and Horts new 1881 Greek revision from Alexandrian text (mainly the Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus), along with modern text translations by the United Bible Societies and the Nestle-Aland text. Reference to the phrase 'Traditional text' means the early Greek Majority text which early Bible translations were made from, including Erasmus' 1500's Textus Receptus text which was used by the early Protestant Church.


Luke 24:52
52 And they worshipped Him, and returned to Jerusalem with great joy:
KJV

Modern translation Revised Standard Version:
Luke 24:52
And they returned to Jerusalem with great joy,
RSV

The RSV using the Critical text does not have that part in red that the Traditional Greek text has.



John 3:13
13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but He That came down from heaven, even the Son of man Which is in heaven.
KJV

John 3:12-13
13 No one has ascended into heaven except He Who descended from heaven, the Son of Man.
ESV

That part in the KJV, "Which is in heaven" is a type reference to Jesus as God. The ESV doesn't have that clause, thus removing the Deity of Jesus.



1 Tim 3:16
16 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.
KJV

1 Tim 3:16
16 Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of godliness: He was manifested in the flesh, vindicated by the Spirit, seen by angels, proclaimed among the nations, believed on in the world, taken up in glory.
ESV

Everyone, even the scribes and Pharisees, knew that Jesus was manifest in the flesh, i.e., born of woman's womb. That does not point to the Deity of Jesus Christ. But the KJV using the Traditional Greek text does point to Jesus as God come in the flesh.


John 1:14
14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
KJV

John 1:14-15
14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen His glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.
ESV

The idea of Lord Jesus being "the only begotten of the Father" is a different idea than "the only Son from the Father". The reason is because Adam was also called a "son of God" (Luke 3:38). The Greek word for "begotten" in the Traditional Greek text is specific to the idea of 'only born, i.e. sole' (per Strong's NT:3439). That means Jesus only as 'the only begotten Son', and not any other, not Adam nor any other man born in the flesh. The Critical text of "the only Son from the Father" thus removes the Deity of Jesus Christ that cannot be applied to Adam, nor any other man. The idea of "begotten" instead makes Jesus' position as God The Son unique to Him only.

 

[DavP]

Origen was a first rate thinker and writer but his Christology was bunk, sigh.

So were Voltaire and Thomas Paine great thinkers at a time when the Age of Reason was coming to dominate the western nations. But Voltaire was a radical Liberal, and Thomas Paine who wrote Common Sense was an atheist.

 

[Fred]

Luke 24:52
52 And they worshipped Him, and returned to Jerusalem with great joy:
KJV

Modern translation Revised Standard Version:
Luke 24:52
And they returned to Jerusalem with great joy,
RSV

It doesn't read that way in the NASB.
Furthermore, you dodged John 14:14 from my previous post.