Which Jesus? Why the Bible version issue matters.

[Will J. Kinney]

Which Jesus are we talking about? Why the Bible version issue matters.

Which of these examples reveal the real Lord Jesus Christ, who is God manifest in the flesh?

John 7:8-10 Did Jesus lie or tell the truth? If He lied, then He sinned, and He can't be our Saviour.

KJB - "Go ye up unto this feast: I go not YET unto this feast; for my time is not yet full come. When he had said these words unto them, he abode still in Galilee. But when his brethren were gone up, THEN went he also up unto the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret."

ESV, NIV 2011 edition, NASB - "You go to the feast. I AM NOT GOING up to this feast, for my time has not yet fully come. After saying this he remained in Galilee. But after his brothers had gone up to the feast, THEN HE ALSO WENT UP, not publicly but in private." (ESV)
http://brandplucked.com/john78didjesuslie.htm

Daniel 9:26 What Did Christ Accomplish With His Death?

KJB - "Messiah cut off, but NOT FOR HIMSELF"

ESV (NIV, NASB, NET) - "an anointed one shall be cut off AND SHALL HAVE NOTHING."

http://brandplucked.com/dan926messiahcutoff.htm

Matthew 5:22 Did Jesus Sin when He Got Angry?

King James Bible - "But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother WITHOUT A CAUSE shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire."

However in many modern versions which are based on the ever changing UBS, Nestle-Aland, Vatican supervised Critical texts, the word translated as “without a cause” is omitted. Yet Jesus Himself got angry as is clearly seen in Mark 3:5 - “And when HE HAD LOOKED round about ON THEM WITH ANGER..."

http://brandplucked.com/matthew522withoutcause.htm

Is the Jesus you believe in the one whose goings forth are from everlasting or the one whose ORIGIN is from ancient days.

Did the Son of God have an "origin from ancient times" or "his goings forth are from everlasting"? Did He have a beginning or is He eternal?

Micah 5:2 "But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; WHOSE GOINGS FORTH have been of old, FROM EVERLASTING." “from everlasting” - Coverdale, Bishops’ bible, Geneva, RV, ASV, NKJV, NASB.

Micah 5:2 - “The NIV - "But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose ORIGINS are from of old, FROM ANCIENT TIMES."

“Origin from ancient times” - NIV, RSV, ESV, NET, Holman, Jehovah Witness version, more recent Catholic versions.

http://brandplucked.com/micah52heb211origin.htm

Is the Jesus you believe in a divisive person who needs to be rejected?

Heretic or A Divisive Person?

According to the Modern Versions even Jesus Himself should be avoided because He was divisive; but He was not a heretic.

Titus 3:10 KJB - “"A man that is an HERETIC after the first and second admonition reject; knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself."

Heretic - Wycliffe, Tyndale, Coverdale, Geneva Bible, Revised Version, Third Millennium Bible.

Titus 3:10 NKJV 1982 - "Reject A DIVISIVE MAN after the first and second admonition.”

A Divisive Person - MEV, NKJV, NIV, NASB, ESV, NET.

http://brandplucked.com/hereticordivisive.htm


Is Jesus the same Son of God who appeared in the fiery furnace or was that just “a son of the gods”?
Who was with Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego in the fiery furnace, “the Son of God” or “a son of the gods”?

Daniel 3:25 - "and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God."

“The Son of God” Wycliffe, Bishops’ bible, Geneva Bible, Douay-Rheims, Lamsa’s Syriac Peshitta, NKJV, Third Millennium Bible.

Daniel 3:25 - “and the appearance of the fourth is like a son of the gods.”

“a son of the gods” - NIV, NASB, RSV, ESV, Holman, Catholic Jerusalem bible, Jehovah Witness New World Version
http://brandplucked.com/dan325thesonofgod.htm


Is the Jesus you believe in the first begotten from the dead (the resurrection) or was there a day when God became his Father and thus he is not the everlasting God?

KJB - Acts 13:33 and Psalms 2:7 "Thou are my Son, THIS DAY HAVE I BEGOTTEN THEE."

NIV, NET, MEV - "You are my son; TODAY I HAVE BECOME YOUR FATHER."

False Doctrine in some (NKJV, ESV, NASB 1995, LSB) and Heresy in others (NASB 2020, NIV, NET, Jehovah Witness NWT).

Will anybody notice? Does anybody care?

All Bibles do NOT teach the same things, even when they are translating the same Greek text.

In the true Bible Acts 13:33 speaks of the day the Son of God was raised from the dead and became the firstborn from the dead (Col. 1:18) and the first begotten of the dead (Rev. 1:5).

The fake bibles teach that there was a time when God became the Father of the Son, and thus the Son is not from everlasting to everlasting.

http://brandplucked.com/acts1333thisdaybegotte.htm


1 Timothy 3:16 "GOD was manifest in the flesh or the Vatican Versions' "He" was manifest in the flesh?

Can you prove the deity of Christ from this verse in the Vatican supervised text versions? No. Everybody born into this world is manifest in the flesh. Nothing special about that. But it is a quite different thing when we read that GOD was manifest in the flesh!

1 Timothy 3:16 KJB - "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."

1 Timothy 3:16 ESV (NIV, NASB, NET, LSB, Jehovah Witness NWT, Catholic St. Joseph, New Jerusalem) - "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."

Another King James Bible Believer

"He that hath ears to hear, let him hear."

"But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant."

God bless.

 

[Alan Dale Gross]

Vatican supervised text versions

We welcome your contribution to the Baptist Board Forum, as Baptists.

(I am not saying that as an endorsement for KJVO, but for your apologetics concerning God's Word Preserved, as opposed to the proven lies that the Bible didn't exist for Centuries and needed to be reconstructed.)

Those who are Protestant Baptists, who owe their origins and lack of authority to Roman Catholicism, may welcome translations which had dominating influences from such manuscripts as are named after Mount Sinai and the Vatican.

I would think that they could take the names of those manuscripts as a forewarning hint.

 

[Conan]

The Part Of The Rheims In The Making Of The English Bible.

The part of Rheims in the making of the English Bible : Carleton, James G. (James George), 1848-1918 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

VII, 259, [1] p. 23 cm

archive.org

 

[atpollard]

About John 7:8-10 …

Jesus said to them, “My time has not yet come, but your time is always here. The world cannot hate you, but it hates me because I testify about it that its works are evil. You go up to the feast. I am not going up to this feast, for my time has not yet fully come.” After saying this, he remained in Galilee. (John 7:6-9) [ESV Throughout]

Understanding the "apparent lie" is best seen not from the variants of text, but from the calendar and customs of the Jewish people while the Temple was still standing.

The Feast of Booths is an 8-day event which takes place during the seventh month:

“Speak to the people of Israel, saying, On the fifteenth day of this seventh month and for seven days is the Feast of Booths to the LORD. On the first day shall be a holy convocation; you shall not do any ordinary work. For seven days you shall present food offerings to the LORD. On the eighth day you shall hold a holy convocation and present a food offering to the LORD. It is a solemn assembly; you shall not do any ordinary work. (Leviticus 23:34-36)

Booths was one of the three times which attendance in Jerusalem was mandatory:

“Three times a year all your males shall appear before the LORD your God at the place that he will choose: at the Feast of Unleavened Bread, at the Feast of Weeks, and at the Feast of Booths. They shall not appear before the LORD empty-handed. (Deuteronomy 16:16)

This is the annual calendar of feast days showing mandatory attendance in Jerusalem:

Feast Mandatory Attendance
Passover No
Unleavened Bread Yes
First Fruits See note
Pentecost Yes
Trumpets No
Day of Atonement No
Tabernacles Yes

Since Jesus and His brothers are in Galilee, about 70 miles from Jerusalem, they have a trip which could take several days. Their planning requires a decision how far in advance of the feast they will leave to be "on time." In order to observe the feast, they must build their temporary lodging, the "booth" for which the feast is named. The first day is a day of no work so they must allow enough time to gather the branches and build their booth (or bring or gather the materials during the trip). finally, there are the practical considerations associated with a large number of people traveling to Jerusalem who will also be building booths: arriving early would be prudent.

Someone traveling from Galilee will necessarily plan on arriving at least 1-2 days before Booths begins. It would be natural to consider attending The Day of Atonement which is 4 days before Booths. Thus there are two possible scenarios which fit the introduction given in verses 7:1-8:

1. The brothers of Jesus went to Jerusalem to observe only the Feast of Booths.
2. The brothers of Jesus went to Jerusalem to observe both the Day of Atonement and the Feast of Booths.

Option 1 is consistent with when Jesus is first placed in attendance:

About the middle of the feast Jesus went up into the temple and began teaching. (7:16)

"About the middle" would be on the fourth day. Jesus brothers arrived before the feast. Jesus left after His brothers and arrived sometime after the 7-day feast had begun. In this case Jesus attended the feast but He did not attend the entire 7-day period.

Option 2 is the more likely sequence. Despite the lack of mandatory attendance, the Day of Atonement is considered the most holy day of the year. Observing the Day of Atonement in Jerusalem also allows 3 full days to prepare of Booths. This feast Jesus did not observe.

None of the Gospel writers mention the Day of Atonement which occurred 2,3, or 4 times during Jesus public ministry. John does make references to sin which, when considered in the context of the annual calendar should be seen as allusions to the Day of Atonement:

And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.” (8:7)
So he said to them again, “I am going away, and you will seek me, and you will die in your sin. Where I am going, you cannot come.” (8:21)
I told you that you would die in your sins, for unless you believe that I am he you will die in your sins.” (8:24)

These references, coming so close to the Day of Atonement speak to the lack of efficacy of the Day of Atonement ritual. In other words, 10 or so days after the ritual which should have made atonement for all sin, Jesus says for one who is without sin to act and then says, "Unless you believe I AM, you will die in your sins." Not, unless the High Priest enters the Most Holy Place to make atonement for your sins.

John's introduction to the Feast of Booths is purposeful to consider the Day of Atonement since the events which follow speak to the issues of being without sin and dying in your sins.

When the "time" is seen to include the Day of Atonement it is not the right time in any sense of the language for Jesus to be in Jerusalem.

---

Note: The Feast of First Fruits is not specifically called out for mandatory attendance. It is observed on the day after the first Sabbath after Passover and will usually fall during the 7-days of Unleavened Bread except in a year which the Passover is on a Sabbath. Observing Unleavened Bread in Jerusalem will almost always result in a man being in Jerusalem for First Fruits. As was the case the year Jesus was crucified.

[source]

Both “not” and “not yet” are correct grammatically and theologically. Note the change in verb tense among the passage. Jesus says “you go (immediately) but I am not going (immediately) because it is not yet the right time for me.” [a paraphrase of a longer grammatical/textural discussion].

 

[Will J. Kinney]

About John 7:8-10 …


[source]

Both “not” and “not yet” are correct grammatically and theologically. Note the change in verb tense among the passage. Jesus says “you go (immediately) but I am not going (immediately) because it is not yet the right time for me.” [a paraphrase of a longer grammatical/textural discussion].

There is nothing in any text about "immediately". You just made that up. Did you by any chance actually look at the article I wrote on this verse?

The fake "bibles" can't even agree with themselves from one edition to the next.

John 7:8-10 Did Jesus lie or tell the truth?


http://brandplucked.com/john78didjesuslie.htm

John 7:8-10 KJB (Revised Version 1881, NIV 1973, 1978 and 1984 editions, Legacy Standard Bible 2021)- "Go ye up unto this feast: I go not YET unto this feast; for my time is not yet full come. When he had said these words unto them, he abode still in Galilee. But when his brethren were gone up, THEN went he also up unto the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret."

The old NIVs of 1973, 1978 and 1984 also read this way saying: "I am NOT YET going up to this Feast".

However now the 2011 has once again changed its underlying Greek texts and now has Jesus lying to His brothers by saying: "You go to this festival. I AM NOT GOING up to this festival, because my time has not yet fully come."

ESV (NIV 2011 edition, NASB) - "You go up to the feast. I AM NOT GOING up to this feast, for my time is not yet fully come. After saying this he remained in Galilee. But after his brothers had gone up to the feast, the HE ALSO WENT UP, not publicly but in private."


Revised Version 1881 - "Go ye up unto the feast: I go NOT YET unto this feast".


ASV 1901 - "Go ye up unto the feast: I go NOT up unto this feast"



The reading of "not yet" (ουπω ) is that found in the vast Majority of all Greek texts including P66, P75, Vaticanus, L,T, W, Delta and in some Old Latin copies and in the Syriac Peshitta, Harclean, Palestinian and the Coptic Sahidic and Boharic ancient versions.


The reading of "NOT going" is ouk as opposed to oupw "not yet", and is the reading found in the Sinaitic manuscript and D.

Even Westcott and Hort and the previous Nestle Aland critical texts (4th edition 1934) used to follow the Greek reading found in the King James Bible an in all Reformation bibles - "not YET going", but later on the Nestle Aland, (21st and 27th editions) and UBS (United Bible Society - the Vatican/Evangelical "interconfessional text") changed their minds and have now gone with the other reading that is not even the oldest reading, and the result is that many of these new "Catholic versions" have Jesus LYING to His disciples by saying that He is NOT going to the Feast and then turning around and going to the Feast.

This textual change is not due to any "new manuscript discoveries" at all. It's the same information they have always had. They just happened to change their minds, and introduced a new text so you can buy the late$t in $cholar$hip Advance$.

 

[Van]

Here is the NET bible footnote concerning Daniel 9:26:

69sn The expression have nothing is difficult. Presumably it refers to an absence of support or assistance for the anointed one at the time of his “cutting off.” The KJV rendering “but not for himself,” apparently suggesting a vicarious death, cannot be defended.

All translations contain errors, both from copyist corruptions in their basis text (TR, MT, or CT) and from their own translation errors. ​

 

[atpollard]

There is nothing in any text about "immediately". You just made that up.

from the [source] I linked to

“I wonder if it has something to do with the use of the present indicative tense in "I am not going up"? (I'm getting that from BibleHub, which appears to use the Nestle 1904 text).

If I understand this tense correctly, it means that at that moment, he (Jesus) was not going up to the feast, which is a statement of fact, but that this situation could change in his future. We see in our past that he did in fact go up. Several verbs connected to this in 7:9 and 10 are in the aorist indicative tense, meaning that he went ahead and did various things that are in our past (he remained,7:9; he went up, 7:10) and are reported after the fact. Jesus' words in 7:8 are reported as a conversation in his present, where he hasn't actually said that he will not go up, simply that he isn't currently on his way up, hence the use of the present indicative.”


Feel free to comment on the importance or meaning of some verbs in John 7 being in “present indicative” tense (like “I am not going up”) and other verbs being in the “aorist indicative” tense (like “he went up”).

Did you by any chance actually look at the article I wrote on this verse?

No. I read the OP and researched the first listed verses for myself. Both manuscript variants are well documented as ancient, so the manuscript evidence is inconclusive and no reason to reject either variation as “not original” (as you have argued in the OP).

 

[Craigbythesea]

Why the Bible version issue matters.

In the academic world where accuracy is of prime importance, the Second Edition of the Revised Standard Version (1971) was until recently the most often quoted translation of the Bible (in any language) in academic literature. With the publication of the New Revised Standard Version in 1989, that began to change rapidly making the New Revised Standard Version the academic standard. With the publication of the New Revised Standard Version Updated Edition in 2022, this new edition may replace the earlier edition as the academic standard. By comparison, the New International Version is a sloppy and ridiculously inaccurate mess that became popular, not because of any supposed quality of it, but exclusively because of the dishonest and hugely expensive advertising campaign that rocketed it to stardom. The high quality New American Standard Bible has survived in spite of the very intense smear campaign against it by the publishers of the New International Version.

The Revised Standard Version and the revisions of it became the academic standards because the translators had available to them the invaluable resources of Oxford University. The Roman Catholic church has endorsed the Revised Standard Version and the revisions of it but special Roman Catholic Editions have also been published. However, having the massive resources of The Roman Catholic Church and its excellent biblical scholars, the Roman Catholic Church issued The New American Bible in 1970. In 1986, the New American Bible was reissued with a revised New Testament, and in 1991, the New American Bible was reissued with a revision of the Psalms. On March 9, 2011, the New American Bible Revised Edition was released and it is the current Roman Catholic Bible.