Believed King James was most accurate, now unsure what to think

[Alan Gross]

All of the changes that have been made in the 'modern bibles' which diminish and counter the teachings of Jesus' Divinity do so for one reason; their translators and writers didn't believe in the Deity of Jesus Christ, so they took out what they wanted to define Jesus as a man and not God.

They just changed the 'bible' from that representing Christianity, to another religion. Gnosticism, if you like, or Anti-Christ Occultism.

The ESV is no friend of the Lord Jesus Christ
as it contains many verses which have been chopped up by the Gnostics.

"They have taken the name of the Lord Jesus Christ
and have shortened it since they did not believe
that Christ was God and man at the same time."

“To determine the question before us,
it is still necessary that we should acquire
a precise knowledge of the fundamental tenets
of those heretics whom the apostles opposed.

"St. John has very expressly declared,
that they ‘denied the Father and the Son;”
having disputed that “Jesus was the Son of God,”
and that “he was come in the flesh.’

"With this representation, exactly accords the account
which we receive from the tenets of the Nicolaitans and Cerinthians;
those heretics whom the apostles expressly opposed.

"They ‘denied the Father,’ not merely disputing his paternity,
in denying his only-begotten Son,
but representing him as

"a being who was removed from the care
and consideration of earthly things;

"who had permitted the creation of the world
by beings of an inferior and angelical nature,

"and had consigned it to their superintendence.

"They ‘denied the Son,’ as disallowing his eternal filiation,
and degrading him into the order of secondary and angelical existences.

"Thus far the Nicolaitans and Cerinthians agreed.

"They agreed also in ‘denying that Jesus was the Christ;’
though they maintained this doctrine under different modifications.

"The Cerinthians, dividing the person of Jesus Christ,
considered Jesus a mere man;
born in a natural manner from Joseph and Mary;
but mystically united with the angelical being Christ,
who descended upon him at the time of his baptism.

"This union, they conceived,
was dissolved at the time of the crucifixion;
the man Jesus having suffered on the cross,
while the impassible Christ ascended into the heavens.

"The Nicolaitans, ‘denying that Jesus was come in the flesh,’
considered Jesus Christ a mere phantasm,
having a form which resembled flesh,
but which consisted of an ethereal essence.

"At the time of the crucifixion,
they held that he secretly withdrew himself,
while Simon the Cyrenean suffered in his likeness."

From:
The ESV is a P--snip--n of the Word of God.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION

2. ESV CLAIMS

3. TRANSLATORS of the RSV

4. ESV FURTHER CLAIMS

5. TWELVE BASIC RULES OF TEXTUAL CRITICISM

6. TEXTUAL CRITIQUES DECEIVED
AND THEIR DECEPTION OF OTHERS

7. FAITHFUL CHRISTIANS CAN BE DECEIVED

8. PRESERVATION OF THE WORD OF GOD

9. WHERE THEN DID THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN
THE KJV AND THE NEWER VERSIONS COME FROM?

10. HISTORY OF THE NESTLE-ALAND EDITIION,
WHICH IS THE BASIS OF THE ESV

11. WHO WERE BROOKE FOSS WESTCOTT
AND FENTON JOHN ANTHONY HORT?

12. VATICANUS AND SINIATICUS

13. THE ESV “TAKETH AWAY” 17 COMPLETE VERSES

14. MORE VERSES REMOVED

15. WARNING FOR THOSE WHO TAKE AWAY
OR ADD TO GOD’S WORD!!!!!

16. THE ESV “TAKETH AWAY” OVER 33,000 WORDS
IN JUST THE NEW TESTAMENT!

17. THE ESV AND THE LORD JESUS CHRIST

18. ESV AND SALVATION

19. THE ENGLISH SUB-STANDARD VERSION
...

"THE notion of a literal identity between the present copies of the inspired text,
and the original edition, which was published by the sacred writers,
is a vulgar error, which finds as little foundation in reason, as justification in fact."

from:
An inquiry into the integrity of the Greek Vulgate:
by Nolan, Frederick, 1784-1864

 

[37818]

@Alan Gross,
Regarding Acts of the Apostles 15:11, ". . . But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they. . . ." The addition of "Christ" seems to me to be the better reading. But only a small 5% of the manuscripts of Acts adds it.

 

[JD731]

In the second appendix of a reprint of Murdock's translation, Isaac Hall maintained that none of the manuscripts of the Peshitta "contain the story of the adulteress, John 7:53 to 8:11, nor the text of the three Heavenly Witnesses, 1 John 5:7, nor Luke 22:17, 18" (p. 495). Scrivener observed that the first printed edition (1555) of the Peshitta by Albert Widmanstadt was "apparently based on manuscript authority alone" and that it did not contain the second epistle of Peter, the second and third epistles of John, Jude, Revelation, John 7:53-8:11, Luke 22:17-18, and doubtful clauses in Matthew 27:35, Acts 8:37, 15:34, 28:29, and 1 John 5:7-8 (Plain Introduction, II, pp. 8-9). Scrivener again asserted that Acts 15:34 “is wanting [lacking] in the Peshitto (only that Tremellius and Gutbier between them thrust their own version into the text)” (Ibid., p. 373). Some later printed editions of the Peshitta added or interpolated some of the verses and clauses that are not found in any of the existing manuscripts of the Peshitta.

The Peshitta Syriac Bible has the different reading "Titus" at Acts 18:7. Because of a likeness of ending, a line of Greek is said to be omitted from some Greek manuscripts at John 6:11, and this copying error can be found in the Peshitta Syriac Version. Thus, at John 6:11 the Lamsa Bible and Glenn David Bauscher’s translation of the Peshitta have Jesus distributing the bread to the multitude rather than to the disciples who distribute it to the multitude. At Luke 8:12, Murdock’s New Testament, the Lamsa Bible, and the Peshitta as translated by Glenn David Bauscher have "the enemy" where the KJV has "the devil." Bob Ross cited John Gill as noting: "The Syriac version here [John 1:18] renders it, 'the only begotten God'" (Trinity and the Eternal Sonship of Christ, p. 257). The Lamsa Bible has "firstborn of God" at John 1:18 while Murdock's translation and Bauscher’s translation of the Syriac have "the only begotten God." Murdock, Lamsa, and Bauscher have "Isaiah the prophet" at Mark 1:2 instead of “the prophets.” At John 1:28, Murdock, Lamsa, and Bauscher have “Bethany” instead of “Bethabara.” Murdock has “a certain Jew,” Lamsa has “a Jew,” and Bauscher has “a certain Judean” instead of “the Jews” at John 3:25. Murdock’s has “Joseph of Ramath” at John 19:38 instead of “Joseph of Arimathaea.” At Matthew 11:19, Lamsa and Bauscher have “justified by its works” where the KJV has “justified of her children.” At Luke 7:35, Lamsa and Bauscher have “justified by all its works” where the KJV has “justified by all her children.” Murdock’s and Lamsa have “gospel of God” at Acts 12:24 where the KJV has “word of God.” Murdock’s and Lamsa have “Barnabas” at Acts 13:13 where the KJV has “his company.” Murdock’s, Lamsa’s, and Bauscher’s translations of the Peshitta have “the day of our Lord” instead of “the Lord’s supper” at 1 Corinthians 11:20. Murdock’s has “Cephas” instead of “Peter” at Galatians 1:18. Instead of “bishops” at Philippians 1:1, Murdock, Lamsa, and Bauscher have “elders.” At Revelation 1:8, Murdock and Lamsa have “the Lord God” where the KJV has “the Lord.” Murdock has “O Lord our God, the Holy,” Lamsa has “O our Holy Lord and God,” and Bauscher has “Our Lord and Our God” at Revelation 4:11 where the KJV has “O Lord.” Murdock, Lamsa, and Bauscher have "eagle" at Revelation 8:13 instead of "angel." At Revelation 14:4, Murdock and Lamsa have “redeemed by Jesus” where the KJV has “redeemed.” These three English translations of the Peshitta Syriac Bible have “tree of life” instead of “book of life” at Revelation 22:19.

Along with other differences, there are also several other omissions besides the whole verses listed earlier and some additions in the Peshitta when compared to the KJV. At Matthew 27:9, Murdock’s, Lamsa’s, and Bauscher’s translations omit “Jeremy.” As translated into English, the Peshitta does not have "God" at Mark 12:32, and it does not have the last half of Matthew 27:35. Two phrases [“by them of old time”] are omitted at Matthew 5:27. At Matthew 25:13, a clause [“wherein the Son of man cometh”] is omitted. Another clause [“as they went to tell his disciples”] is missing at Matthew 28:9. Several words [“into the fire that never shall be quenched”] are omitted at Mark 9:45. At Mark 11:20, Murdock’s and Lamsa omitted two phrases [“in the name of the Lord“]. The first half of Acts 9:6 is omitted. At Acts 28:16, several words [“delivered the prisoners to the captain of the guard”] are omitted. One commandment [“thou shalt not bear false witness”] is omitted at Romans 13:9. At Colossians 1:14, a phrase “through his blood”] is not found. Several words [“I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last”] are missing at Revelation 1:11. The clause “which are in Asia” is also omitted at Revelation 1:11. The phrase “unto me” or “to me” after “saying” at Revelation 1:17 is not found in the Peshitta.

In some verses, English translations of the Peshitta may have additional words such as “the river” at Matthew 3:6, “it is I; be not afraid“ or “do not be afraid“ at Luke 24:36, “in Hebrew“ at John 20:16, “over Egypt” at Acts 7:18, “surnamed Agrippa“ at Acts 12:1, “to Antioch“ at Acts 12:25, “of the Lord” at Acts 14:25, “of Jesus“ at Acts 16:7, “in him“ at Romans 3:22, “the son of Nun” at Hebrews 4:8, and “a third part of the earth was burnt up” at Revelation 8:7. At Matthew 28:18, the Peshitta Syriac added the following words as translated in the Lamsa Bible: "just as my Father has sent me I am also sending you." At Acts 14:10, the Lamsa Bible has the phrase "in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ" which is not found there in the KJV.

At Matthew 10:8, the Lamsa Bible and Bauscher’s translation do not have "raise the dead," which is also not found in the Greek Majority Text. Murdock’s has “raise the dead” in brackets with a marginal note that stated “omitted in most copies.”

Logos, your study is vanity. You are interested in Bible study for the wrong reasons, IMO. All this stuff you post exalts yourself and those you follow. When studying the scriptures one should use the KISS method. My head spins when I read your comments.

 

[37818]

One should understand the underlying Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts handed down from the original autographs are the source words of God that God had given us. Deuteronomy 8:3, Matthew 4:4, Luke 4:4 and Matthew 5:18.

". . . For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. . . ."

 

[Logos1560]

You are interested in Bible study for the wrong reasons, IMO.

Your non-humble opinion is wrong. I am interested in what the Scriptures state and teach, and I am interested in the truth concerning the Scriptures. Misleading and inaccurate claims should be corrected.

Modern KJV-only reasoning/teaching with its dependance upon use of fallacies and use of divers measures [double standards] is vain since it attempts to advocate a doctrine of man as a doctrine of God.

 

[Alan Gross]

One should understand the underlying Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts handed down from the original autographs are the source words of God that God had given us. Deuteronomy 8:3, Matthew 4:4, Luke 4:4 and Matthew 5:18.

". . . For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. . . ."

AMEN!


Important Differences Between the Textus Receptus
and the Nestle Aland/United Bible Society Text.
"The King James Bible is a translation of an edition of the Greek New Testament text called the Textus Receptus.

"Most modern translations are based on an edition of the Nestle-Aland/United Bible Society (NA/UBS) text.

"The differences between the two texts are many and important.

"Textus Receptus readings generally provide stronger doctrine.

"The following list (at the link below) shows some of the more doctrinally significant readings that are in the Textus Receptus (and in many cases in the Byzantine and Western as well) but are missing in the NA/UBS text."

https://textusreceptusbibles.com/Differences_Between_Textus_Receptus_and_NaUbs

This is some of the first examples;

How can we say God's Word has been Preserved, in the modern translations, when God's Word is routinely omitted? We can't.

And they didn't even try. That was not their intention.

SOMEONE WANTED THESE WORDS LEFT OUT, ON PURPOSE.

"Reference & Variant;

"Matthew 1:25; The Textus Receptus says Jesus was Mary's "firstborn" son, which implies that Mary had other sons later.

"This truth exposes the error of the doctrine of perpetual virginity.

"Matthew 5:22; The Textus Receptus says anger is sin if it is "without cause."

"Matthew 5:44; The Textus Receptus includes, "Bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you."

"Matthew 6:1; The Textus Receptus says not to do "alms" before men.
The Nestle-Aland says not to do "acts of righteousness" before men.

"Matthew 6:13; The Textus Receptus includes, "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen."

"Matthew 9:13; The Textus Receptus says our Lord Jesus Christ came to call sinners "to repentance."

"Matthew 13:51; In the Textus Receptus the disciples here acknowledge Jesus as "Lord."

etc., etc.

 

[Logos1560]

Important Differences Between the Textus Receptus
and the Nestle Aland/United Bible Society Text.

Do you ignore or avoid the important differences in the twenty to thirty varying printed editions of the Textus Receptus and the even greater number of differences in the Greek New Testament manuscripts on which those TR editions are based? [By greater number of differences I refer to the larger number of differences in the TR's underlying Greek NT manuscripts compared to the number in the varying printed TR editions]. Do you apply the same measures/standards to these differences?

Did Erasmus’ Greek manuscripts have any of the readings that he added to his Greek text by translating from an edition of the Latin Vulgate of Jerome?
Are textual differences involving whole verses or entire clauses very slight, minor, meaningless, and insignificant?

The Greek NT manuscripts that underlie the varying TR editions differ in whether or not they include the following whole verses: Mark 11:26, Luke 17:36, Acts 8:37, 1 John 5:7. The first two printed TR editions by Erasmus did not have Mark 11:26, Luke 17:36, 1 John 5:7, and Revelation 21:26. Scrivener maintained that Acts 15:34 is omitted by several manuscripts including over fifty cursives and that “Erasmus inserted it in his editions from the margin of Codex 4” (Introduction, Vol. II, p. 373).

Some other significant differences in TR editions are found involving clauses and phrases at Mark 15:3c, John 8:6c, John 8:9b, John 8:59c, John 19:38c, James 4:6b, 1 John 2:23b, Revelation 5:11b, Revelation 18:23a, and Revelation 21:26.

In the 1550 Greek text edition by Stephanus, over 2,000 differences are indicated in the textual marginal notes from only fifteen Greek manuscripts and the printed Complutensian edition.

Edward F. Hills maintained that the Textus Receptus editions of Erasmus and Stephanus and the “majority of the Greek manuscripts” have their purification at Luke 2:22 (KJV Defended, p. 221). Many of the Greek NT manuscripts that underlie the TR editions and several TR editions have the reading his father at Luke 2:33. In the case of Luke 10:22, an edition of Stephanus has a reading [“and turning to his disciples he said”] followed in the 1560 Geneva Bible that Backus reported where Beza “remarks that the phrase appears in many ancient MSS” although he omits it from his text (Reformed Roots, p. 85). Edward F. Hills declared that “Erasmus, Stephanus 1 2 3 omit this verse [Luke 17:36] with the majority of Greek manuscripts” (Believing Bible Study, p. 208). At the beginning of John 14:1, Erasmus’ text has a reading (“And he said unto his disciples”) that is not found in Beza. Concerning 1 Timothy 1:4, Edward F. Hills asserted that Stephanus and “majority of Greek manuscripts” read dispensation of God while Erasmus, Beza, and KJV read godly edifying (KJV Defended, p. 222). At Hebrews 9:1, Edward F. Hill claimed that Stephanus “reads first tabernacle, with the majority of the Greek manuscripts,” and that the KJV “omits tabernacle and regards covenant as implied” (Believing Bible Study, p. 209). One reading followed in the KJV at Revelation 17:8 (and yet is, instead of, and shall come) is said by Edward F. Hills to be an “uncorrected printer’s error in Erasmus” (p. 83). Edward F. Hills wrote: “Here the reading kaiper estin (and yet is) seems to be a misprint for kai paresti (and is at hand), which is the reading of Code 1r, the manuscript Erasmus used in Revelation” (KJV Defended, p. 202). Jan Krans referred to this reading at Revelation 17:8 as “one of the Erasamian blunders” (Beyond what is Written, p. 54, footnote 6). Concerning Revelation 22:19, Doug Kutilek claimed: “All Greek manuscripts read ‘tree of life;’ not a single one reads ‘book of life’” (Erasmus, His Greek Text, p. 3). Doug Kutilek asserted: "The fact that all textus receptus editions of Stephanus, Beza, et al. read with Erasmus shows that their texts were more or less slavish reprints of Erasmus' text and not independently compiled editions, for had they been edited independently of Erasmus, they would surely have followed the Greek manuscripts here and read 'tree of life'" (Westcott & Hort vs. Textus Receptus, p. 3).

There are more than a few variants in the Greek NT manuscripts underlying the varying printed Received Text editions, and they are not often noted in the margin of the KJV. There were also textual conjectures introduced into the varying printed TR editions along with some errors introduced by the printers.

 

[robycop3]

It is no surprise to me that you have totally missed the metaphor that is established in the very first record of fallen humanity. These two men were twin brothers of the same stock and sets the precedent for the battle between the flesh and the spirit The first man is born of the flesh and Cain typifies that man while the second birth produces the man God can use and through whom he can accomplish his will. Cain was sensual and Abel was spiritual. Their actions toward God and each other demonstrates this.(Ro 8:8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God)

Jesus Christ says his words are spiritual and are life (Jn 6:63) and that means they carry his spiritual meanings.
Joh 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

9 Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be?
10 Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?
11 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.
12 If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?

Nicodemus was a pharisee, a master and teacher of the OT. Jesus said he should have known about the second birth. How would he have known? By understanding the spiritual nature of the words in it. It was dead sure he knew this chapter about Cain and Abel and all the other second born men whom God used after rejecting the first born but the metaphor was not realized by him.

These men were twins. One conception, two births.

There's no SCRIPTURALproof they were twins. In fact, your KJV says Eve AGAIN bore, Abel this time. Separate conceptions.

 

[37818]

There's no SCRIPTURALproof they were twins. In fact, your KJV says Eve AGAIN bore, Abel this time. Separate conceptions.

Did you read and understand the Hebrew expert I posted?

The Untold Story of Cain and Abel | AHRC

 

[JD731]

There's no SCRIPTURALproof they were twins. In fact, your KJV says Eve AGAIN bore, Abel this time. Separate conceptions.

lol, rc3, most people knows conceiving and bearing are two different things. The KJV is always right. You can trust your soul on it.

 

[robycop3]

Did you read and understand the Hebrew expert I posted?

The Untold Story of Cain and Abel | AHRC

Scripture says Eve bore Cain and AGAIN she bore Abel. After she birthed Cain, she said, "With the Lord's help, I have gotten a man" before she had Abel. Nowhere does Scripture say, "She bore Cain and Abel." or that they were twins, such as Jacob & Esau. Hebrew expert or not, your man was still guessing.

 

[robycop3]

lol, rc3, most people knows conceiving and bearing are two different things. The KJV is always right. You can trust your soul on it.

Yes, the KJV is always right, except where it's not. Simple truth is, Adam caused Abel to be conceived through another act of intercourse with Eve.

 

[Logos1560]

The KJV is always right.

You do not prove your opinion to be true. Your opinion can be wrong.

There are many varying editions of the KJV so that all of them cannot always be right. Here are a few examples out of hundreds that could be given. All present post-1900 KJV editions are not every word the same.

At Leviticus 17:14, the 1611 edition of the KJV has "ye shall not eat the blood of no manner of flesh" where your present KJV has "ye shall eat the blood of no manner of flesh."

At 1 Kings 11:5, the 1611 edition has the name of the wrong group of people "Amorites" instead of the name of the correct group "Ammonites."

At 2 Kings 24:19, the 1611 edition of the KJV has the name of the wrong king "Jehoiachin" instead of the name of the correct king "Jehoiakim."

At Jeremiah 49:1, the 1611 edition of the KJV has "God" while most KJV editions have "Gad."

The 1769 Oxford along with most Oxford and Cambridge editions of the KJV for over 100 years had the name of the wrong person "Zithri" as the last word of Exodus 6:21.

At Romans 10:7, the 1769 Cambridge edition of the KJV has "ascend" where most KJV editions have "descend."

At Exodus 20:14, the 1631 London edition of the KJV has "Thou shalt commit adultery."

At Genesis 31:38, over thirty editions of the KJV have the grammatically correct "These twenty years" while most KJV editions have "This twenty years"--a singular "this" with a plural noun "years". "These" is the plural form to be used with a plural noun.

 

[37818]

Scripture says Eve bore Cain and AGAIN she bore Abel. After she birthed Cain, she said, "With the Lord's help, I have gotten a man" before she had Abel. Nowhere does Scripture say, "She bore Cain and Abel." or that they were twins, such as Jacob & Esau. Hebrew expert or not, your man was still guessing.

If you read his article, you must not have understood it.

The Untold Story of Cain and Abel | AHRC

". . . see in Genesis 29:32-33 where it states that Leah conceived and bore a son, and then she conceived again and bore a son. Note that there are two conceptions and two births. But notice how it is worded in Genesis 4:1-2.

Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain; And again, she bore his brother Abel. (RSV)
Notice that there is only one conception, but two births. . . ."

 

[JD731]

The Untold Story of Cain and Abel | AHRC

The author got it right about Cain and Abel being twins but that was about all. If there would have been a law against murder then God would have killed Cain. The fact there was no law and men knew right from wrong because of their conscience.

Here is the seriousness of the law;

Nu 15:32 And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day.
33 And they that found him gathering sticks brought him unto Moses and Aaron, and unto all the congregation.
34 And they put him in ward, because it was not declared what should be done to him.
35 And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp.
36 And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses.

The Lord is not indifferent about his law.

Ro 5:13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

That is the reason God did not order the death of Cain.

 

[robycop3]

If you read his article, you must not have understood it.

The Untold Story of Cain and Abel | AHRC

". . . see in Genesis 29:32-33 where it states that Leah conceived and bore a son, and then she conceived again and bore a son. Note that there are two conceptions and two births. But notice how it is worded in Genesis 4:1-2.

Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain; And again, she bore his brother Abel. (RSV)
Notice that there is only one conception, but two births. . . ."

I believe "again" meant the whole process.

 

[JD731]

I believe "again" meant the whole process.

No, this is the reason you often get off track. The words of God are always precise. 37818 is right to compare other places in scripture with similar circumstances to determine how to process this information and to make a determination by the likenesses and the differences.

there is safety and instruction in this approach.

 

[37818]

I believe "again" meant the whole process.

How you believe. How does your belief prove the evidence false?

 

[robycop3]

How you believe. How does your belief prove the evidence false?

my belief doesn't-SCRIPTURE does.

 

[robycop3]

No, this is the reason you often get off track. The words of God are always precise. 37818 is right to compare other places in scripture with similar circumstances to determine how to process this information and to make a determination by the likenesses and the differences.

there is safety and instruction in this approach.

Scripture doesn't say "She gave birth to Cain and Abel." The description of the birth of Jacob & Esau makes it plain that they were twins.