Doctrinal Superiority vs 'Most Ancient Texts' leaning towards the NWT.

adapted from: Hebrews 1:3

An example of Doctrinal Superiority is given in Hebrews 1:3, by including "by himself", as the Only Savior being Jesus and including "our", indicating a Limited Atonement, in the KJV and previous Bible versions.

Hebrews 1:3;

(KJV) Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

(1611 KJV) Who being the brightnesse of his glory, and the expresse image of his person, and vpholding all things by the word of his power, when hee had by himselfe purged our sinnes, sate down on ye right hand of the Maiestie on high,

(1587 Geneva Bible) Who being the brightnes of the glory, and the ingraued forme of his person, and bearing vp all things by his mightie worde, hath by himselfe purged our sinnes, and sitteth at the right hand of the Maiestie in the highest places,

(1526 Tyndale) Which sonne beynge the brightnes of his glory and very ymage of his substance bearinge vp all thinges with the worde of his power hath in his awne person pourged oure synnes and is sitten on the right honde of the maiestie an hye.

By contrast, the following "Modern Versions" all but a very few omit "by himself", which may teach 'God provided salvation in some other way rather than by Jesus alone, as the Savior' and omit "our", in Hebrews 1:3, leaving open the teaching of 'Universal Redemption'.

We already know by looking into the KJV and previous Bible versions that God has revealed more information, in more wording than these versions contain.

So, although we also know that the KJV is not a Double Inspired version, Hand-written by God Himself, these instances of omissions in the 'Most Ancient Texts' and these versions made from them, had The Hand of God on them.

Or was there possibly another reason for their omissions?

Who would want that?

And when they are omitted, why do all these Modern Versions square so equally up with and lean toward the New World Translation, doctrinally?

Can these translations be said to have been "faithful to God" in their production? Their claim is that the original texts where treated as if the Bible were any other book.

I think it shows and that these texts and versions were simply robbed by someone who didn't want these Holy, Sacred, and Divine Truths included in what would be called a "Bible".

Why leave out these specific words like that?

Counterfeit Versions

See here on the left hand side for a larger list where all but a couple of versions have these omissions:
Hebrews 1:3 - The Supremacy of the Son

(CSB) The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact expression of his nature, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high.

(NIV) The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven.

(NASV) And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,

(ESV) He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,

(1901 ASV) who being the effulgence of his glory, and the very image of his substance, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had made purification of sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

(RSV) He reflects the glory of God and bears the very stamp of his nature, upholding the universe by his word of power. When he had made purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,

(DOUAY-RHEIMS Roman Catholic) Who being the brightness of his glory, and the figure of his substance, and upholding all things by the word of his power, making purgation of sins, sitteth on the right hand of the majesty on high.

(NWT-Jehovah‘s Witnesses) He is the reflection of [his] glory and the exact representation of his very being, and he sustains all things by the word of his power; and after he had made a purification for our sins he sat down on the right hand of the Majesty in lofty places.

Affected Teachings:

Here is a subtle attack on two of the most cardinal doctrines of the Christian Faith.

In the first attack, the words “by himself” have been omitted. Any true Christian knows that it was the Lord Jesus Christ who went to the cross to pay for the sins of the Elect.

No one helped Him nor did anybody else have anything to add to the sacrifice of Christ.

In fact, knowing what the Roman Catholics would do with Peter, the Lord Jesus had to remove him to a different place or else they would teach that he assisted the Lord in His sacrifice.

By removing the words “by himself” it removes the reality that Christ Himself is the Savior of His people and that it was He who died.

(Mat 1:21 KJV) And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.

When the fact that Jesus Himself was the sacrifice, the modern versions convey that God had purged our sins by other methods.

A person who believes in works can claim that God accomplished their salvation by giving them certain works to do.

A Roman Catholic can claim that God will accomplish their salvation by letting them spend time in Purgatory.

So by removing those very important words “by himself” it opens up the door for a host of belief systems which attempt to circumvent the personal cross of Christ.


The second cardinal doctrine that is attacked is for whom did Christ die.

Many believe He died for the sins of the whole world, that is, for every single person who lives on Earth.

This can be taught when you remove the word “our” because that word “our” points to a specific group of people for whom Christ died and that was His people.


The word “our” specifies for whom Christ died and by removing it, you can create another verse which seemingly would teach universal salvation.

Hebrews 1:3 is a long verse and by removing those three words, it changes the meaning of it.

Once again the King James Bible shows its Doctrinal Superiority and purity in comparison with the modern versions.


Textus Receptus - Traditional Text

oV wn apaugasma thV doxhV kai carakthr thV upostasewV autou jerwn te ta panta tw rhmati thV dunamewV autou di eautou kaqarismon poihsamenoV twn amartiwn hmwn ekaqisen en dexia thV megalwsunhV en uyhloiV

Hort Westcott - Critical Text

oV wn apaugasma thV doxhV kai carakthr thV upostasewV autou jerwn te ta panta tw rhmati thV dunamewV autou kaqarismon twn amartiwn poihsamenoV ekaqisen en dexia thV megalwsunhV en uyhloiV

 

It's not my term, it's from a secondary source noted.

According to the forum rules I have committed to memory, it is not.

If 'corrupt' carries a similar Spirit as 'perverted', then call them spurious, as I started to change it to.

The 'Most Ancient Texts' manuscripts have always been referred to as spurious by God's children throughout the history of them, in their underground existence.

Their resurfacing has created havoc in Christendom, as they tend in their leaning towards the NWT, per the title and OP, doctrinally and practically.

Spurious defines as "not being what they purport to be".

If so, that follows that their products would also be spurious, at least to the same extent.

You won't find me having anything good to say about the insufficiency of those 'Most Ancient Texts', but I appreciate you coming to their defence in whatever winner way you could.

For me to back off of something I've said has become a daily thing for me, here, and whether I am calling someone a "viper hypocrite with a mouth like an open sepulchre", which Jesus did in so many words, not me.

Or if I actually hit upon something "not in the Christian Spirit" or not Christlike, I get it and make concerted efforts to comply with the environment established.

In the event of the outside chance God triggers someone with something I found innocent, as opposed to my own gross ignorance, then I didn't know what to tell you.

In other arenas in life, I feel as if that has occasionally happened and have come to try and live with it and revisit the meat of the topic with them, later, if possible.

Dunno.

Excuse me, Deacon, as is my usual norm with you.

Thank you.