Very Important Information about Bible Translations

Victoria said:
28:6 "the Lord" is omitted. The very reverent angels said, "see the place where the Lord lay." They would not say, "see the place where he lay." The constant attempt to humanize Jesus and take away from his Deity does not endear the Westcott and Hort Greek Text to believers.
Click to expand...
Hi and it's good to see others who are on to the Enemies deceptions of the Word of God. I just wanted to add to your list a couple more, from among hundreds of passages.

The Lord Jesus said He was omnipresent in Jn 3:13: "No man hath ascended up to heaven, but He that came down from heaven, even the Son of Man which is in heaven." The Alexandrian Text writes, "No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man." This verse manifests that Jesus is on earth while He is in heaven.

The Word shows the omnipresence of the Holy Spirit in 1Jn 5:7: "For there are Three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these Three are One"; but not the modern versions: "For there are three that testify:" with verse eight it manifests the Holy Spirit being in heaven and on earth simultaneously.

As I mentioned, that are hundreds of passages that have been changed (as you know). The liberal theologians accuse the conservative theologians of adding to the Word with there footnotes; and the conservative theologians with the notes accuse them of omitting Scripture. The footnotes in the modern versions can cause others to doubt the true Word when they footnote that a word or words should not be in the translations.
 
NetChaplain said:
Hi and it's good to see others who are on to the Enemies deceptions of the Word of God. I just wanted to add to your list a couple more, from among hundreds of passages.

The Lord Jesus said He was omnipresent in Jn 3:13: "No man hath ascended up to heaven, but He that came down from heaven, even the Son of Man which is in heaven." The Alexandrian Text writes, "No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man." This verse manifests that Jesus is on earth while He is in heaven.

The Word shows the omnipresence of the Holy Spirit in 1Jn 5:7: "For there are Three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these Three are One"; but not the modern versions: "For there are three that testify:" with verse eight it manifests the Holy Spirit being in heaven and on earth simultaneously.

As I mentioned, that are hundreds of passages that have been changed (as you know). The liberal theologians accuse the conservative theologians of adding to the Word with there footnotes; and the conservative theologians with the notes accuse them of omitting Scripture. The footnotes in the modern versions can cause others to doubt the true Word when they footnote that a word or words should not be in the translations.
Click to expand...
I'm conservative and figure the textus receptus includes extra text that perhaps was added to clarify concepts the scribes either heard from others or might seem ambiguous. So the changes from the original Greek are not generally harmful. But I have not examined the extent of modifications of the "originals."
 
mikesw said:
I'm conservative and figure the textus receptus includes extra text that perhaps was added to clarify concepts the scribes either heard from others or might seem ambiguous. So the changes from the original Greek are not generally harmful. But I have not examined the extent of modifications of the "originals."
Click to expand...
Hi Mike! Nobody can check the originals because the original autographs of the writers of Scripture are no longer available. I believe the changes from the Traditional Text are far too great to consider them the Word of God. Just mixing the Word with non-scripture doesn't make it true Scripture (1Co 5:6; Gal 5:9).

Always appreciate your replies!
 
NetChaplain said:
Hi Mike! Nobody can check the originals because the original autographs of the writers of Scripture are no longer available. I believe the changes from the Traditional Text are far too great to consider them the Word of God. Just mixing the Word with non-scripture doesn't make it true Scripture (1Co 5:6; Gal 5:9).

Always appreciate your replies!
Click to expand...
I would disagree that we should consider the textus receptus as being corrupted by its additions to the original text. But we can recognize that scribes sometimes added those -- and sometimes accidentally -- like adding margin notes. Of course is something got added that was messing up the meaning, later copyists would not propagate those errors.
 
mikesw said:
I would disagree that we should consider the textus receptus as being corrupted by its additions to the original text. But we can recognize that scribes sometimes added those -- and sometimes accidentally -- like adding margin notes. Of course is something got added that was messing up the meaning, later copyists would not propagate those errors.
Click to expand...
The Traditional versions are the only ones that use The Majority text and the Textus Receptus. The MT is comprised of 95% of all existing manuscript copies, along with the TR, which was written by Erasmus.
 
NetChaplain said:
Hi and it's good to see others who are on to the Enemies deceptions of the Word of God. I just wanted to add to your list a couple more, from among hundreds of passages.

The Lord Jesus said He was omnipresent in Jn 3:13: "No man hath ascended up to heaven, but He that came down from heaven, even the Son of Man which is in heaven." The Alexandrian Text writes, "No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man." This verse manifests that Jesus is on earth while He is in heaven.

The Word shows the omnipresence of the Holy Spirit in 1Jn 5:7: "For there are Three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these Three are One"; but not the modern versions: "For there are three that testify:" with verse eight it manifests the Holy Spirit being in heaven and on earth simultaneously.

As I mentioned, that are hundreds of passages that have been changed (as you know). The liberal theologians accuse the conservative theologians of adding to the Word with there footnotes; and the conservative theologians with the notes accuse them of omitting Scripture. The footnotes in the modern versions can cause others to doubt the true Word when they footnote that a word or words should not be in the translations.
Click to expand...
Greetings, NetChaplain!

I didn't want to overdo it here, so I just decided to post those two links.
Reuben (2nd link) did an excellent article on this topic.
Feel free to check them out :)
 
Another good article by Reuben. Perhaps this may help clear up a lot of confusion.
Not all who hold to the King James Bible are Ruckmanites.

I'm #4, had to edit 😂

Not All KJB Views Are The Same

There's only one thing in position #3 that I agree w/... not sticking my nose up at anyone.
It wouldn't be demonstrating Christ's love towards others.
 
Last edited:
There is a scholar who is giving some arguments toward the textus receptus. He seems to be saying the earliest fragments do not particularly reject that the Greek of the textus receptus being that old.

 
mikesw said:
There is a scholar who is giving some arguments toward the textus receptus. He seems to be saying the earliest fragments do not particularly reject that the Greek of the textus receptus being that old.
Click to expand...
The Holy Spirit is enough to help us discern through study of the scriptures.
Allow Him to guide you into all truth 🙏
 
Victoria said:
The Holy Spirit is enough to help us discern through study of the scriptures.
Allow Him to guide you into all truth 🙏
Click to expand...
We'll see who is ready and willing to be guided through all truth. The preference of certain translations may not be a big issue around that seeking of truth. We'll see what points arise. There also is the consideration of the Septuagint in the preservation of scripture.
 
mikesw said:
I have more Holy Spirit than you. kidding.
I added a remark about the Septuagint in that earlier post. Also, i'm wondering how much corrections to the OT and NT are done regarding the textus receptus.
Click to expand...
You're such a silly goose 😋

Shouldn't we be more concerned w/ obeying God, & doing His will?
 
mikesw said:
We'll see who is ready and willing to be guided through all truth. The preference of certain translations may not be a big issue around that seeking of truth. We'll see what points arise. There also is the consideration of the Septuagint in the preservation of scripture.
Click to expand...
Do you not agree that a translation that attacks the very Word of God should be discarded?
His Godhead, the Gospels, salvation, etc.
 
mikesw said:
We'll see who is ready and willing to be guided through all truth. The preference of certain translations may not be a big issue around that seeking of truth. We'll see what points arise. There also is the consideration of the Septuagint in the preservation of scripture.
Click to expand...
What you said above reminds me of what Reuben stated in his article:

The man who has a true conviction about the textual issue is motivated by his very conviction to take a stand. He believes the preserved Scripture is found in an exact text and translations thereof and he must therefore take a stand for it as the eternal Word of God. It is impossible for him not to be dogmatic and strident on the issue. On the other hand, the man who accepts the modern texts and versions has no such conviction. To him, the preserved Scripture is not found in any one text or version but is scattered mystically throughout the whole and it is his prerogative to pick and choose as he sees fit. Such a position is far removed from textual dogmatism, and the man who holds this position finds it difficult to understand those who are dogmatic and unbending. He wonders why the TR-KJV defender cannot treat the issue as casually as he treats it, but this is not possible because of the very nature of the TR-KJV defender’s convictions.

The whole approach to this subject for those who embrace modern perversions is a ministry of questionings and doubt. Does Gods Word really say that? Does it really mean that? “Yea hath God said” (Gen 3:1) is Satans whisper. Doubting’s and questioning are glorified, and it happens not just in the text but in many doctrines of Scripture, while Gods Word says such questioning is demonic and evil (Gen 3:1). Paul warned against this sort of ungodly ministry (1 Tim 4:1-4; Col 2:8), while a godly man’s approach to the Bible is Biblical exegesis and edification to what the passage precisely and perspicuously teaches.

“Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men,
after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.” (Col 2:8)
 
Victoria said:
What you said above reminds me of what Reuben stated in his article:

The man who has a true conviction about the textual issue is motivated by his very conviction to take a stand. He believes the preserved Scripture is found in an exact text and translations thereof and he must therefore take a stand for it as the eternal Word of God. It is impossible for him not to be dogmatic and strident on the issue. On the other hand, the man who accepts the modern texts and versions has no such conviction. To him, the preserved Scripture is not found in any one text or version but is scattered mystically throughout the whole and it is his prerogative to pick and choose as he sees fit. Such a position is far removed from textual dogmatism, and the man who holds this position finds it difficult to understand those who are dogmatic and unbending. He wonders why the TR-KJV defender cannot treat the issue as casually as he treats it, but this is not possible because of the very nature of the TR-KJV defender’s convictions.

The whole approach to this subject for those who embrace modern perversions is a ministry of questionings and doubt. Does Gods Word really say that? Does it really mean that? “Yea hath God said” (Gen 3:1) is Satans whisper. Doubting’s and questioning are glorified, and it happens not just in the text but in many doctrines of Scripture, while Gods Word says such questioning is demonic and evil (Gen 3:1). Paul warned against this sort of ungodly ministry (1 Tim 4:1-4; Col 2:8), while a godly man’s approach to the Bible is Biblical exegesis and edification to what the passage precisely and perspicuously teaches.

“Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men,
after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.” (Col 2:8)
Click to expand...
I avoid LDS and JW to avoid those questionable translations. So it is good to avoid those distortions they take.
 
Victoria said:
Do you not agree that a translation that attacks the very Word of God should be discarded?
His Godhead, the Gospels, salvation, etc.
Click to expand...
The wonderful goal exists to have the scriptures with the best testimony of the original sense.
Here's a video I'm watching now. The guy may have the goodest approach:
 

Similar threads

DavP
Proof of What Modern Bible Translators Have Done to Corrupt Newer Bible Translations
8 9 10
Replies
185
Views
7K
e v e
e v e
N
“Exhort One Another” (Heb 10:25)
Replies
0
Views
316
NetChaplain
N
koberstein
Rabbinic Bible Study
Replies
2
Views
334
e v e
e v e
N
Bible Problem
4 5 6
Replies
119
Views
4K
Removed
R
EclipseEventSigns
The Transmission of the New Testament - An Analogy
2 3
Replies
59
Views
2K
praise_yeshua
P
Back
Top Bottom