The faith of Jesus Christ versus the faith of man

[jeremiah1five]

Attack me now

It’s valid, and warranted. I have a responsibility to the Lord to call out fake Christians. I don’t call anyone “Brethren” until I first find out if we have the same Father.
Or you can repent of your insincerity and show me in Jeremiah 31:31-34 where Jeremiah mentions “Gentiles” you said he does. You make great fuss that Jeremiah mentions “Gentiles” in his prophecy and when called to prove it you don’t. Back up your statements or be called a fraud. I don’t play games with God or His Word.

 

[brightfame52]

It’s valid, and warranted

I have nothing to say to you

 

[Jim]

Au Contraire, James.

13 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him? Luke 11:13.

What? Three or four times out of the nearly ninety actual occurrences in the NT is not right.

 

[jeremiah1five]

What? Three or four times out of the nearly ninety actual occurrences in the NT is not right.

I answered you. And you were wrong.

 

[Jim]

I answered you. And you were wrong.

Acknowledged, but my point is still appropriate. It is the Holy Spirit, not a holy Ghost.

 

[jeremiah1five]

Acknowledged, but my point is still appropriate. It is the Holy Spirit, not a holy Ghost.

I would prefer "Spirit." It was a preference of the translators. It is the same Greek word.

 

[Jim]

I would prefer "Spirit." It was a preference of the translators. It is the same Greek word.

But it is not the same English word!!

 

[jeremiah1five]

But it is not the same English word!!

That's insignificant. We don't get doctrine from a translation.
King James approved 54 translators for the task but 47 were actually 'hands on.'
Those from Oxford preferred "Ghost" and those from Cambridge preferred "Spirit."
Cambridge was founded by some who left Oxford over some schism so there were already some 'high' feelings between these universities that could have contributed to the two different English words. Then there was also Westminster. Each of three groups translated various sections. They passed their translations among the other two groups and if they did not find any significance with the two different words - and there's none - then go with it. It's about translation of the Greek and Hebrew, not the English.

 

[Jim]

That's insignificant. We don't get doctrine from a translation.

Of course we do. You cannot get doctrine from a text in a language that you do not know and understand.

King James approved 54 translators for the task but 47 were actually 'hands on.'
Those from Oxford preferred "Ghost" and those from Cambridge preferred "Spirit."
Cambridge was founded by some who left Oxford over some schism so there were already some 'high' feelings between these universities that could have contributed to the two different English words. Then there was also Westminster. Each of three groups translated various sections. They passed their translations among the other two groups and if they did not find any significance with the two different words - and there's none - then go with it. It's about translation of the Greek and Hebrew, not the English.

It is about the English that the Greek and Hebrew were translated into. And it is also about the Greek and Hebrew that the translators used as their starting points.

 

[jeremiah1five]

But it is not the same English word!!

That's insignificant. We don't get doctrine from a translation.
King James approved 54 translators for the task but 47 were actually 'hands on.'
Those from Oxford preferred "Ghost" and those from Cambridge preferred "Spirit."
Cambridge was founded by some who left Oxford over some schism so there were already some 'high' feelings between these universities that could have contributed to the two different English words. Then there was also Westminster. Each of three groups translated various sections. They passed their translations among the other two groups and if they did not find any significance with the two different words - and there's none - then go with it. It's about translation of the Greek and Hebrew, not the English.

Of course we do. You cannot get doctrine from a text in a language that you do not know and understand.

It is about the English that the Greek and Hebrew were translated into. And it is also about the Greek and Hebrew that the translators used as their starting points.

Are you going to have a problem when the KJV translators use three or more English words to translate one Greek word?
Maybe you have a problem with the KJV translators who use one English word to translate two different Greek words?
And let's not get started on the Hebrew. The bottom line is to study these things on your own under the anointing and let the Lord Christ tell you what to believe, not those who make commentaries, the very textbook responses you and others post as your 'answers.' I can recognize when someone has actually studied a question or 'hard' verse. I can recognize textbook answers on the spot. So, I'm not really discussing theology with a member, but with the theologian they quote.

So, you have two different Greek words, and the translators use one English word. Is that a problem for you?

 

[FreeInChrist]

That's insignificant. We don't get doctrine from a translation.
King James approved 54 translators for the task but 47 were actually 'hands on.'
Those from Oxford preferred "Ghost" and those from Cambridge preferred "Spirit."
Cambridge was founded by some who left Oxford over some schism so there were already some 'high' feelings between these universities that could have contributed to the two different English words. Then there was also Westminster. Each of three groups translated various sections. They passed their translations among the other two groups and if they did not find any significance with the two different words - and there's none - then go with it. It's about translation of the Greek and Hebrew, not the English.

Oh no....... another KJO fan? You people will learn eventually that Jimmy's translation had as many or more flaws to it then others.

 

[jeremiah1five]

Oh no....... another KJO fan? You people will learn eventually that Jimmy's translation had as many or more flaws to it then others.

I can deal with 'flaws' especially when I know what those flaws are and can address them, but it doesn't change the theology of Scripture.
Sure, there are translation issues but it is better than making a Greek translation from corrupt texts, which is what Westcott & Hort did, and which is used to make modern, new-age English translations such as the ASV, NASB, NKJV, NIV, NLT, and all the other corrupt translations out there on the market today.
The KJV is STILL the best English translation for English-speaking people.
You are probably using one of those corrupt translations now. Those translations use the Revised Greek Version of 1881 by two closet-Catholics, Westcott & Hort. Look it up. But this requires study because it's important to know how your translation came to be. All Westcott and Hort did was create confusion in the church. While you're at it look up William John Burgon who revealed the corruption of their Greek version.

 

[FreeInChrist]

I can deal with 'flaws' especially when I know what those flaws are and can address them, but it doesn't change the theology of Scripture.
Sure, there are translation issues but it is better than making a Greek translation from corrupt texts, which is what Westcott & Hort did, and which is used to make modern, new-age English translations such as the ASV, NASB, NKJV, NIV, NLT, and all the other corrupt translations out there on the market today.
The KJV is STILL the best English translation for English-speaking people.
You are probably using one of those corrupt translations now. Those translations use the Revised Greek Version of 1881 by two closet-Catholics, Westcott & Hort. Look it up. But this requires study because it's important to know how your translation came to be. All Westcott and Hort did was create confusion in the church. While you're at it look up William John Burgon who revealed the corruption of their Greek version.

I have at the ready

Youngs Literal Translation.

I do at times check the New King James as they have correct a lot.

occasionally... not often the Modern English Version.

NONE with either Catholic or Westcott and Hort.

Also do occasionally use the Peshitta, or Aramaic in Plain English or Lamsa Bible
and some of Victor Alexanders translations.

 

[Victoria]

I have at the ready

Youngs Literal Translation.

I do at times check the New King James as they have correct a lot.

occasionally... not often the Modern English Version.

NONE with either Catholic or Westcott and Hort.

Also do occasionally use the Peshitta, or Aramaic in Plain English or Lamsa Bible
and some of Victor Alexanders translations.

Is there a YLT app (like BlueLetterBible.org) that I can check out?

(edited)

Oh, my bad, there is a Young's option within the BBB app. Never mind!

 

[jeremiah1five]

I have at the ready

Youngs Literal Translation.

Depends on which work you use. Young's translation used the Textus Receptus in the 1860s but he also did some work after W&H published their version and he did use it at times.

I do at times check the New King James as they have correct a lot.

NKJV is translated from W&H's Greek text. It is as corrupt as they come.

occasionally... not often the Modern English Version.

Same with the MEV. Typically, any translation published after 1881 used Westcott & Hort's corrupt Greek translation. This includes all modern translations. ALL of them. The only good English translation is the KJV.

NONE with either Catholic or Westcott and Hort.

Also do occasionally use the Peshitta, or Aramaic in Plain English or Lamsa Bible
and some of Victor Alexanders translations.

These also are corrupt.

 

[FreeInChrist]

Is there a YLT app (like BlueLetterBible.org) that I can check out?

(edited)

Oh, my bad, there is a Young's option within the BBB app. Never mind!

It is ok.... in case you lose yours ....https://www.biblestudytools.com/ylt/

 

[FreeInChrist]

Depends on which work you use. Young's translation used the Textus Receptus in the 1860s but he also did some work after W&H published their version and he did use it at times.

NKJV is translated from W&H's Greek text. It is as corrupt as they come.

You need to check your references....

No, the New King James Version (NKJV) is not translated from the Westcott-Hort Greek text (also known as the Critical Text or the Nestle-Aland/UBS text).
Here’s what the NKJV actually uses:

Textual Basis of the NKJV (1982)​

• New Testament: The NKJV New Testament is a modern-English update of the Textus Receptus (the traditional Greek text behind the original 1611 King James Version). Specifically, it follows the Greek text edited by Stephanus (1550), which is essentially the same as the Textus Receptus used for the KJV, with very minor differences. It deliberately rejects the Westcott-Hort/Critical Text as its primary base.
• Old Testament: Translated from the Masoretic Text (Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia), the same Hebrew text used by the KJV.
• Translation Philosophy: The NKJV was explicitly created as a conservative update of the KJV. The translators (130 scholars working under Thomas Nelson) wanted to retain the beauty and accuracy of the KJV while modernizing archaic language. One of their stated goals was to keep the traditional textual basis (Textus Receptus / Masoretic Text) rather than switching to the Critical Text that underlies most modern versions (NIV, NASB, ESV, etc.).

Key Evidence​

• The NKJV retains verses and phrases that are omitted or bracketed in Westcott-Hort-based translations (e.g., Acts 8:37, 1 John 5:7–8 “Comma Johanneum” in full traditional form, the longer ending of Mark 16, the Pericope Adulterae in John 7:53–8:11 without relocation or heavy bracketing, etc.).
• The preface to the original 1982 NKJV explicitly says the New Testament is based on the Textus Receptus.

Summary Table​

Version	NT Greek Text Used	Example Passages Retained from TR
KJV (1611)	Textus Receptus	Yes
NKJV (1982)	Textus Receptus (Steph. 1550)	Yes
NIV, ESV, NASB, NRSV	Critical Text (Westcott-Hort / NA/UBS)	No (omitted or footnoted)

So in short: The NKJV is one of the very few modern English translations that deliberately stays with the Textus Receptus and rejects the Westcott-Hort/Critical Text tradition.

Same with the MEV. Typically, any translation published after 1881 used Westcott & Hort's corrupt Greek translation. This includes all modern translations. ALL of them. The only good English translation is the KJV.

These also are corrupt.

Here is a reference list for you that you can copy.

Below are the major English Bible translations (or families of translations) that were produced without relying on the Westcott-Hort Greek New Testament (1881) or its closely related successors (Nestle-Aland/UBS critical text that largely follows Westcott-Hort principles).

Translations that pre-date Westcott-Hort (1881)​

These obviously could not have used it:

• Tyndale New Testament (1526–1535)
• Coverdale Bible (1535)
• Matthews Bible (1537)
• Great Bible (1539)
• Geneva Bible (1557–1560, the most popular English Bible before the KJV)
• Bishops’ Bible (1568)
• King James Version / Authorized Version (1611, revised 1769) → Entirely based on the Textus Receptus (TR), no critical text involvement

Translations that deliberately continued using the Textus Receptus (or Majority/Byzantine manuscripts) instead of Westcott-Hort / Critical Text​

• Young’s Literal Translation (1862, revised 1898) – Robert Young rejected Westcott-Hort
• Darby Bible (1867–1890 New Testament, 1871 Old Testament) – J.N. Darby used Textus Receptus and rejected critical texts
• Revised Version margin (1881–1885) – The main text used Westcott-Hort, but the English revisers kept many Textus Receptus readings in the margin; some later editions emphasize those
• American Standard Version (1901) – Used Westcott-Hort text, but many later “TR-only” advocates reject it
• New King James Version (NKJV, 1982) – Explicitly based on Textus Receptus for the New Testament (same Greek text as the 1611 KJV)
• Modern English Version (MEV, 2014) – Updated-language edition of the KJV, uses Textus Receptus
• King James Version Easy Reading (KJVER, 2002)
• Third Millennium Bible (1998)
• Updated King James Version (UKJV)

Translations that use the Majority Text / Byzantine Text (not Textus Receptus exactly, but still reject Westcott-Hort / Critical Text)​

• World English Bible (WEB, 2000–2020) – Public-domain modern version based on Majority/Byzantine text
• Analytical-Literal Translation (ALT)
• English Majority Text Version (EMTV, Paul Esposito)
• The Literal Standard Version (LSV, 2020) – Primarily Majority Text with some TR influence
• The New Testament: Recovery Version (Living Stream Ministry) – Uses a blend, but largely Byzantine-priority

Translations from the Peshitta (Syriac) or other non-Greek sources (independent of Westcott-Hort)​

• Lamsa Bible (1933) – Translated directly from the Aramaic Peshitta
• Murdock (1852), Etheridge (1849), and other Peshitta-based English versions

Summary Table (major English translations)​

Translation	Year	Greek Text Used	Uses Westcott-Hort / Critical Text?
King James Version (KJV)	1611	Textus Receptus	No
Young’s Literal	1862	Mostly Textus Receptus	No
Darby Bible	1890	Textus Receptus	No
ASV	1901	Westcott-Hort	Yes
RSV	1952	Critical Text	Yes
NASB	1971	Critical Text	Yes
NIV	1978	Critical Text	Yes
NKJV	1982	Textus Receptus	No
ESV	2001	Critical Text	Yes
MEV	2014	Textus Receptus	No

So if someone wants a modern English Bible that completely avoids any influence from Westcott and Hort’s Greek text, the main options today are:

• New King James Version (NKJV)
• Modern English Version (MEV)
• World English Bible (WEB) – Majority Text version
• Literal Standard Version (LSV)

These are the primary ones still in widespread use that deliberately stand apart from the Westcott-Hort/Nestle-Aland tradition.

And before you add the Catholics in the mix.

None of the four modern English Bibles that deliberately avoid Westcott-Hort and stay with the Textus Receptus or Majority/Byzantine text have any official or institutional connection to the Roman Catholic Church.

Translation	Publisher / Primary Sponsors	Any Roman Catholic involvement or approval?	Notes
New King James Version (NKJV)	Thomas Nelson (owned by HarperCollins, which is secular)	No	Purely Protestant/Evangelical project. Thomas Nelson has always been a Protestant publishing house. The NKJV was specifically created to update the KJV while keeping the Textus Receptus.
Modern English Version (MEV)	Passio (imprint of Charisma Media) and Military Bible Association	No	Initiated by Charisma House (Pentecostal/Charismatic publisher) and strongly supported by conservative Protestant and military-chaplaincy groups. Uses the same underlying texts as the KJV.
World English Bible (WEB) – Majority Text edition	Public-domain project originally started by Michael Paul Johnson; Majority Text portion overseen by evangelical scholars	No	Completely non-denominational, open-source, volunteer-driven. No Catholic hierarchy or funding involved.
Literal Standard Version (LSV)	Covenant Press (publishing arm of the Covenant Christian Coalition)	No	The Covenant Christian Coalition is an alliance of conservative Baptist, Bible-church, and non-denominational evangelical groups. Explicitly Protestant in outlook.

 

[FreeInChrist]

@Victoria

Pay no attention to jeremiah1five . He does not research as deeply as I do on many things and this is one of them.

Add to the YLT these... You can find them online and bookmark them for easy reference and comparison.
So if someone wants a modern English Bible that completely avoids any influence from Westcott and Hort’s Greek text, the main options today are:

• New King James Version (NKJV)
• Modern English Version (MEV)
• World English Bible (WEB) – Majority Text version
• Literal Standard Version (LSV)

These are the primary ones still in widespread use that deliberately stand apart from the Westcott-Hort/Nestle-Aland tradition.

These also have no Catholic ties that bother a lot of people on here.

None of the four modern English Bibles that deliberately avoid Westcott-Hort and stay with the Textus Receptus or Majority/Byzantine text have any official or institutional connection to the Roman Catholic Church.

 

[e v e]

nations = demon nations

tribes is His

we need to understand and go Home to eden .

after the fall ,

they changed His 10 base to 12
- to their false sky of 12 constellations and its 'astrology' cough
- to a year of 12 months (instead of His 10)

neither are His

they changed His words

 

[e v e]

this is not the eden earth He created for us.

we are in a foreign land!



yes it is hard to take