Is someone who believes in one version of the Bible unbiblical ?

[charles_creech78]

Is the Textus Receptus eclectic?

No, the Textus Receptus is not an eclectic text. This is a significant point. If the Textus Receptus was also eclectic there would be little difference between the TR and the NU texts because they would have the same kinds of problems. The scholars who support the NU text often lead a person to assume that the TR is also eclectic. They give facts that lead to that conclusion. But if you observe carefully what they say they are not foolish enough to state that the TR is an eclectic Greek text. The TR is a compiled Greek text but not an eclectic Greek text. There is a fundamental difference between the way that the TR and the NU Greek texts are compiled.

Because none of the ancient Greek manuscripts contain all of the New Testament, in order to have all the books that have been canonized in the New Testament, the New Testament has had to be compiled from a number of ancient Greek manuscripts. The TR used manuscripts that have the same reading as each other, where they contained the same passages of Scripture. The TR is a compiled text because a number of Greek manuscripts had to be used to supply all the books of the Bible. At the same time, approximately 90-95% of the Greek manuscripts have the same reading as the TR. These manuscripts are not all identical in that they do not each contain the same passages of Scripture, and misspellings, differences in punctuation (things that fall under the category of "typos"). Where these manuscripts contain the same passages, the basic reading is the same. This is the significant difference between the majority of the manuscripts and the small group of manuscripts that the NU text is based on

 

[charles_creech78]

Why aren't the same standards used to discredit the TR as are used to discredit the NU?

The only reason the NU text can be discredited is because the same standard is applied to the TR and to the manuscripts it is based on. If both texts had the same characteristics, the NU text could not be discredited. That is why supporters of the NIV try to make the TR appear to have the same characteristics as the NU text rather than prove the allegations against the NU text are false.

 

[charles_creech78]

Should the majority be considered right when it comes to examining variations between manuscripts?

An assumption should never be made that the majority of manuscripts is always right. There are a number of other things to also look at. There are a number of old versions as well as some of the writings of the early Christians which date from the same time as Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. Some of the evidences are 100 years or more older than Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. One example of this is finding I John 5:7-8 quoted by Cyprian in AD 251.

A big consideration also is the characteristics of the manuscripts that contain the variant reading. Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, C, D, L, and W each have a large number of corrupt readings that none of the other five have, as well as a large number of corrupt readings in which only one or two of the other five have. There are very few variant readings where all six have the same reading - I believe there is only one

 

[charles_creech78]

A further testimony that the NU Greek text is not reliable

The NIV, NASB, and a number of other modern versions do not completely follow the NU Greek text in translating. Some places they use the Textus Receptus or other sources rather than strictly translating from the Greek of the NU Greek text. In researching what was changed in the Bible in the NIV, it was not a simple matter of comparing the Textus Receptus and the NU Greek texts and noting what was changed. There were many places where something was removed or changed in the Greek in the NU Greek text but it was not removed or changed in the NIV. I also found that if something was missing in the NIV it did not automatically mean it was also missing in the NASB and vice versa. Each translation has done its own picking and choosing on conflicting readings.

By not strictly translating from the NU Greek text, the translators of the NIV, NASV, and others testify that the NU Greek text is not completely reliable

 

[charles_creech78]

In many of the passages it is "meat" that has been removed

There is a significant amount that has been removed in the NIV from Scripture that has important information. In some cases it may be only a word or two that was removed but it was part of the "meat" of that verse. In most cases an entire phrase is removed such as "For the son of man is come to save that which was lost" Matt. 18:11!! The main issue with the NIV is not the modernization of the English and the modernizing of the "thees" and "thous" but what the NIV has removed from God's words

 

[charles_creech78]

A deceptive argument that no essential doctrine has been removed

One of the key arguments in books supporting the NIV translation is that no essential doctrine has been removed, and that a particular phrase in question can be found elsewhere in the Bible. This is an argument that I have heard and read many times. This reasoning is used to make it appear insignificant what the NIV has removed from God's Words. The reason this argument is probably stressed is because some of the other earlier translations that were based on earlier editions of the modern eclectic Greek text totally omitted the virgin birth and the blood of Jesus. The NIV to the best of my knowledge does not totally remove any essential doctrine from Scripture. However; that is part of Satan's deception. Satan learned from his mistake and was more subtle in the NIV. The argument that it is okay to remove something as long as all reference to a particular doctrine is not removed is a poor argument when applied to Scripture. God's Word is truth and is pure. "Every WORD of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his WORDS, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar. "Prov. 30:5,6 "What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it." Deut. 12:32 God has commanded us over and over not to add to, or to take away from His Words.

The argument that something can still be found elsewhere in Scripture is also a poor argument because one could remove several entire books from the New Testament and you could still find every essential doctrine. Because it can still be found does not justify it being removed in a number of other passages. God repeats things over and over for emphasis. There are also some Christians who think that they should be able to find something more than once in Scripture before they consider it important and obey it.

 

[charles_creech78]

The term "doctrine" has been almost totally removed in the NIV

It is amazing, with the argument that no essential doctrine has been removed, that the term doctrine itself has been almost totally removed in NIV. The KJV has the word doctrine 50 times. The NIV only has the word doctrine 5 times! The NIV usually uses the words teaching or instruction. These terms convey a somewhat different thought than doctrine. Teaching and instruction is what one does. Doctrine is what one believes. Today the Church focuses on issues and often uses the term issues rather than doctrine. Issues are controversial, each person has their own opinion. God says doctrine is either sound doctrine or false doctrine.

In thinking of doctrine, as you look at individuals and churches that you know that have made significant changes in what they believe and practice in the last 20 years, what translation of the Bible do they use? Is it a modern translation? Or is it the KJV? The individuals and churches that have not made significant changes in what they believe and practice, what translation do they use? The KJV or a modern translation? What you want to look for is a cause and effect sequence of the majority of persons and churches. There are always a few individual people or churches that do not fit into the pattern of the majority. Wisdom is the ability to see cause and effect sequences of things, actions, and teachings, and then make decisions that steer us toward a closer walk with Jesus, rather than on a course where the majority of the people on that path are moving away from Him.

 

[charles_creech78]

The phrase order of many verses has been significantly changed in the NIV

The result of significantly changing the phrase order is that it is difficult for the KJV/NKJV and the NIV to exist together in a congregation. If someone is reading in the NIV translation, it is easy to get lost following along in another translation and vice versa. What the moving around of the phrase order does, is it hides what the NIV has removed, added, and changed so that it is not readily apparent. It makes the comparison of the NIV and the KJV much more difficult. The moving around of the phrase order and hiding the verse numbers in paragraph form has probably been the main reason most of us never discovered all the phrases and verses that had been removed before this

 

[charles_creech78]

The deception that people need us to make the Bible easier to understand so that they can understand it

One of the interesting things about the Bible is that God wrote it in such a way that a person cannot fully understand it without the Holy Spirit giving understanding. Jesus also purposely used parables when speaking to the multitudes so that they would not fully understand what He was talking about9. He would then reveal at a later time to those who were totally committed to Him what He was saying (that was before the Holy Spirit was given). Understanding of Scripture is in relation to how much one hears and how much one wants to hear what God is telling them. Jesus said "Take heed what ye hear: with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you: and unto you that hear shall more be given. For he that hath, to him shall be given: and he that hath not, from him shall be taken even that which he hath." (Mk. 4:24,25) One's ability to understand what God is saying in the Bible is not in relation to the Bible knowledge one has nor one's understanding of the definitions of Bible words.

One of the main reasons that many have chosen the NIV is so that it would be easier to understand and easier for new Christians to understand. The NIV has been around now for about 20 years and it is time for some evaluating. Is the NIV resulting in people better understanding God's Word than the previous generation? The proof of true understanding is obedience. Is our generation (the baby boom generation) walking in closer obedience to the Word of God than the previous generation that had the KJV? Does Generation X have a better understanding of God's Word, and are they walking in greater obedience to the Word of God than the previous generation? Is there a firmer belief that the NIV has the very words of God and that they are valued, memorized and meditated upon? My observation is that the NIV has not resulted in greater understanding and obedience to God's Word.

 

[tinytim]

Is the Textus Receptus eclectic?

No, the Textus Receptus is not an eclectic text.

This is where you are misguided...

It is an eclectic text... (as i understand eclectic to mean variant texts and people choosing between variant texts to come up with a Greek text) and from one of your previous posts... "When the NU Greek text is described as being eclectic, what does that mean? Because the Greek manuscripts which were used to compile the NU Greek text do not read the same"

There were variant texts that went into making the TR... and Erasmus had to choose which ones were the right ones... just like textual critics today do....

BTW, which TR are you referring too..
The ones before the KJV 1611...
Or the one that is commonly known as the TR that was printed after the KJV?

 

[charles_creech78]

GOD'S WORD IS PURE, IS TRUTH, AND IS NOT TO BE ALTERED

I originally thought that the main verse in the Bible that said we should not add to or remove from the Word of God was in Revelation 22:18,19. Since that verse was in the context of the Book of Revelation, I assumed it only applied to the Book of Revelation and that God did not say much in the rest of Scripture about adding to, or removing from His Word. What I discovered when I searched for verses on this subject was that it is a concept that God gives us throughout all of Scripture.

Why are we not to add to or remove from God's words?

Because we are not to change God's commands. Deut. 4:2; 12:32
So that we will keep the commands of the Lord our God. Deut.4:2
Because God's Word is already established in Heaven. Changing God's Word on earth does not change it in Heaven. Ps. 119:89
So that we will love God's Word. Ps. 119:140
Adding man's words destroys the purity of every word of God. Ps. 119:140; Pr.30:5
Because God's Word is true from the beginning. Ps. 119:160
So that God will not discipline us. Pr.30:5,6
If we change God's words we are a liar (liars have no inheritance with God). Pr.30:5,6
God is against those who steal His words so that others can not read them. Jer. 23:30
Because we do not want to be called least in the kingdom of Heaven. Mt. 5:18,19
Because God's Word will outlast the earth and is not of this earth. Mt. 24:35; Lk.21:33
God's Word does not change over time. Lk. 16:17
Because ALL Scripture was inspired by God, not by human writers or translators. II Tim. 3:16
Because every part of God's Word is profitable. II Tim. 3:16
Because it is through the Word of God that the Gospel is preached to others. I Pet. 1:25
Because God will add unto us the plagues written in Revelation if we add to it. Rev.22:18,19
Because God will remove our name from the Book of Life if we remove from it. Rev. 22:18,19

 

[charles_creech78]

What happens when God's words are added to or removed?

People don't keep God's commands Deut.4:2
It destroys the extreme purity of the words of God Ps.12:6
It keeps people from being changed 100% into the person God wants them to be. Ps.19:7
People won't love God's Word as much. Ps. 119:140
God will reprove that person and they will be found a liar. Pr. 30:5,6
People lose their fear of God. Eccl. 3:14
God is against those who remove His words. Jer. 23:29,30
God will add to that person the plagues written in the Book of Revelation and God will remove that person's name from the Book of Life

 

[charles_creech78]

What does God say?

Note how often God speaks about His individual Words.

Deut. 4:2 "Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you."

Deut. 12:32 "What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it."

Ps. 12:6 "The WORDS of the LORD are pure WORDS: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times."

Ps. 19:7 "The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple."

Ps. 89:34 "My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips."

Ps. 119:89 "Forever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven. "

Ps. 119:140 "Thy word is very pure: therefore thy servant loveth it."

Ps. 119:152 "Concerning thy testimonies, I have known of old that thou hast founded them for ever."

Ps. 119:160 "Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth forever."

Prov. 30:5,6 "Every WORD of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his WORDS, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar."

Eccl. 3:14 "I know that, whatsoever God doeth, it shall be forever: nothing can be put to it, nor any thing taken from it: and God doeth it, that men should fear before him."

Is. 40:8 "The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever."

Jer. 23:29,30 "Is not my word like as a fire? saith the LORD; and like a hammer that breaketh the rock in pieces? Therefore, behold, I am against the prophets, saith the LORD, that steal my WORDS every one from his neighbour."

Matt. 4:4 "But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every WORD that proceedeth out of the mouth of God."

Matt. 5:18,19 "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. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

Matt. 24:35 "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my WORDS shall not pass away."

Mark 13:31 "Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my WORDS shall not pass away."

Lk. 16:17 "And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail."

Lk. 21:33 "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my WORDS shall not pass away."

John 10:35 "If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;"

Roma 3:31 "Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law."

II Tim. 3:16 "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness"

I Pet. 1:23-25 "Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever. For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away: But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.

Rev. 22:18,19 "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the WORDS of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book."

 

[dan e.]

Are you going to give anybody credit for cutting and pasting their works? Or are these all of your remarks? A conversation does not consist of copy and paste.

In case you don't realize...I don't care what you are copying and pasting has to say...especially when you do it in a manner to pass it off as your own words (again, when grammar and spelling drastically change). Everyone has a bias....even the things you copy and paste.



I have never consistently used a KJV Bible, yet my doctrine is completely in line with Orthodox Christianity....how can that be?? *gasp*!

Nevermind Charles....good day to you. :thumbs:

 

[tinytim]

This is where you are misguided...

It is an eclectic text... (as i understand eclectic to mean variant texts and people choosing between variant texts to come up with a Greek text) and from one of your previous posts... "When the NU Greek text is described as being eclectic, what does that mean? Because the Greek manuscripts which were used to compile the NU Greek text do not read the same"

There were variant texts that went into making the TR... and Erasmus had to choose which ones were the right ones... just like textual critics today do....

BTW, which TR are you referring too..
The ones before the KJV 1611...
Or the one that is commonly known as the TR that was printed after the KJV?

Charles, give reference to where you are cutting and pasting from... someone will try to nail you to the wall on this.. as it is against the rules to cut and paste, without giving reference....

BTW, what about the post I posted last page, that you just seemed to ignore.

 

[charles_creech78]

How many variations and of what kind can we tolerate in a text before we say it is the work of Satan?

There will possibly always be some question about the right wording for a few passages in the TR. However, the NU has not followed the reading of even one manuscript, but has added words to and removed words from each of the manuscripts that it is based on. The NU text can not claim that it has neither added nor removed words from each and every manuscript that exists. When we look at the differences that exist between the TR and the NU, the NU has made hundreds of significant changes in areas that Satan wants to undermine -- the deity and Lordship of Jesus Christ, salvation, and the Judgment, prayer and fasting, and others.

 

[Rippon]

Take A Breather , Brother

My , my Charles ! Your grammar and spelling have improved markedly ! Who have you been quoting for 22 consecutive posts ?

Can you put some things in your own words ?

 

[charles_creech78]

Why the Textus Receptus can be trusted as having the Words of God.

The Textus Receptus is an established, fixed Greek text that has been held by Christians for almost 500 years as having the very Words of God. Approximately 95% of all known Greek manuscripts have the same reading as the Textus Receptus. It is not an eclectic Greek text that has been pieced together from conflicting manuscripts like the NU Greek text.

Critics of the Textus Receptus throw a lot of mud at it. In evaluating what they say, the majority of it is merely opinion and personal biases. In checking out statements by critics about particular phrases or verses that they say were clearly added by a later scribe, without fail I have found that phrase or verse was quoted as Scripture in the writings of one of the early Church Fathers a hundred or more years before the date of the earliest manuscript that did not have it. The phrase or verse was not clearly added by a later scribe.

The vast difference in reading between Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, A,C, and D when compared with each other, not to mention when compared with the majority, tell us that these are inferior, corrupt manuscripts that can not be trusted or relied on as containing the very Words of God. God tells us that He has preserved the very words of His Word. The majority of the manuscripts agree with each other and the Textus Receptus is based on these.

We have a choice between two Greek texts: The NU which is based on a few manuscripts that have significant differences in reading from each other and from the majority of manuscripts in 1000's of places, and the TR which is based on over 5000 Greek manuscripts which agree. The Textus Receptus is the one we can put our confidence and trust in as containing the very words of God's Word. It is not based on a handful of corrupt manuscripts.

 

[charles_creech78]

What has been changed in the Modern Greek Text
The following passages address facts that are easily verified.

Because of the seriousness of the situation with how God's Word has been handled the following passages address only facts that you can easily verify - what has been removed from and added to the Bible in the NIV translation. This section addresses changes that have been made to the Bible because of the Greek text that the NIV is translated from. Many of these words, phrases, and verses are also missing in the NASV, the ASV, the RSV, the NRSV, the Contemporary English Version, the New Jerusalem Bible, the Living Bible, the New American Bible, and others which are translated from the same incomplete Greek text as the NIV.

This section does not address the more subjective issues of how Greek words have been translated. Where it is mentioned that something is changed to a different reading, it is the NIV's Greek text that has also been changed. It is not a translation issue of how a Greek word should be translated.

For those who do not know Greek, a good way of evaluating the differences between the Textus Receptus and the modern NU text is to compare the NIV side by side with the KJV (or with the New KJV which notes in the margin some of the following omissions); and note what has been changed and removed in the NIV, since the NIV is based on an eclectic Greek text which is different from the Greek text that the KJV was translated from. Essentially what you are doing is comparing the two different Greek texts in English in addition to comparing the two translations. Then look at your findings as a whole to see what the pattern is in the differences. Are they petty differences, such as different ways of saying the same thing? Or are they significant changes which remove or alter important concepts in the Bible? You don't have to be a scholar or know Greek to do it. Then you can go to the Greek and research the differences further.

One problem you will encounter in comparing the NIV and the KJV is that the NIV significantly changes the word order of many verses. Sometimes it takes a while to discover what has been removed and what has just been changed around. Don't give up. The more verses you check out for yourself the more it will stand out to you the broad scope of Satan's work in the NIV.

( * ) - indicates an entire verse that was removed.

 

[tinytim]

You see if you are talking about the text commonly referred to as the TR that was printed after the KJV... of course it agrees with the KJV...

It was put together using the various greek texts the KJV translators used.. then it was called the TR....

I could write a book and someone 30 yrs from now can translate it into Japanese... of course it is going to match.