KJV and the modern versions

[antiaging]

The main problem with the validity of the modern versions is that they are translated from what is called an eclectic. [pick and mix]
The majority text of both the old and new testament, which was traditionally accepted by bible believing Christians [the reformed protestants] for centuries has been altered in these modern eclectics.
Two manuscripts from Alexandria Egypt, vaticannus and sinaiticus, which show certain evidence of corruption by gnostic heretics, are mixed in with the majority text to form the modern ecclectic texts from which most modern versions are translated.
For a detailed analysis of the evidence of gnostic corruption in the vaticannus and sinaiticus manuscripts go to this website:
http://www.studytoanswer.net/bibleversions/gnostic.html
In the places where the traditionally accepted text disagrees with the corrupted vaticannus and sinaiticus, the words of the corrupted manuscripts are chosen and used. This causes that most of the modern versions, like rsv, nasb, niv to be different from the King James version in about 5% of important places that pertain to Christian doctrine.
The ecclectic texts are a pick and mix invention of the people that produce it. They choose what words to throw out of the traditional text and what words to add from the Alexandrian text. The NIV for example as well as other versions is translated from what is called the nestle-aland eclectic; it is in its 27th edition for the niv. Those people that produce these eclectics are literally changing the Word of God according to their own choosing. This is something that the bible says you may not do and serious punishments will be on those that do it.

Note this warning from the book of Revelation:

Revelation 22:18 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:
Revelation 22:19 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.

 

[Amy.G]

I assume that you approve of the NKJV since the translators used the TR as it's basis, the same as the KJV?

 

[rbell]

This causes that most of the modern versions, like rsv, nasb, niv to be different from the King James version in about 5% of important places that pertain to Christian doctrine.

The above statement is a falsehood.

It's just sad you believe this junk.

 

[Darron Steele]

...
It's just sad you believe this junk.

Agreed.

If the NASB, NIV, TNIV, ESV, HCSB, etc. were really that alien to the King James Version, it would be evident to everyone.

It would not take lengthy books to convince people of this. However, it takes books written for that express purpose for anyone at all to be convinced.

Why? Because the NASB, NIV, TNIV, ESV, HCSB, etc. are not substantially different from the King James Version.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Strawman: The MVs take the blood of Jesus out of the KJV

Searching for 'blood':

437 hits Geneva Bible, 1599 Edition - e-sword.com
451 hits KJV1611 Edition - e-sword.com
447 hits KJV1769 Edition with Strong's numbers - e-sword.com
375 hits KJV1769 Edition - crosswalk.com
352 hits NIV - crosswalk.com
351 hits TNIV -crosswalk.com

I've done it before, it seems like there would be a lot of difference between the 'blood of bulls' missing compared with the 'blood of Christ'.

Heb 9:22 (KJV1611 Edition):
And almost all things are by the Law purged with blood: and without shedding of blood is no remission.

Heb 9:22 (NIV)
In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.

Those who 'took the blood from the Bible' missed the most significant Blood passage of all

The largest differences between two Bibles is:

447 hits KJV1769 Edition with Strong's numbers - e-sword.com
375 hits KJV1769 Edition - crosswalk.com

Oops - Explain that

I'll explain it. There is something different between e-sword's searching tool and the crosswalk's searching tool. The getting of numbers of occurance is fool's task, for it has no meaning. Of course, the getting of number of occurrence does look mathematical (Arithmetic = Grade School Mathematics).

 

[antiaging]

The above statement is a falsehood.

It's just sad you believe this junk.

Changes attacking the deity of Christ:

KJV from the byzantine majority text
1 Timothy 3:16 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.

Nasb
16By common confession, great is (AF)the mystery of godliness:
He who was (AG)revealed in the flesh,
Was (AH)vindicated in the Spirit,
(AI)Seen by angels,
(AJ)Proclaimed among the nations,
(AK)Believed on in the world,
(AL)Taken up in glory.

The real Word of God, from the KJV says God was manifest in the flesh. The NASB has removed that.--a deceitful sly change
They take out the fact that Jesus is God.


From the KJV majority text
Romans 14:10 But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.
Romans 14:11 For it is written, [As] I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.
Romans 14:12 So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.

That shows that Christ is God.

From the Nasb
10But you, why do you judge your brother? Or you again, why do you (P)regard your brother with contempt? For (Q)we will all stand before the judgment seat of God.
11For it is written,
"(R)AS I LIVE, SAYS THE LORD, (S)EVERY KNEE SHALL BOW TO ME,
AND EVERY TONGUE SHALL GIVE PRAISE TO GOD."
12So then (T)each one of us will give an account of himself to God.

The word Christ is removed so that there is no proof Christ is God in those scriptures.

From the KJV majority text
Acts 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

The RSV has
Acts 20:28
Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God which he obtained with the blood of his own son.

KJV has God's church was purchased by God's blood; therefore Christ is God.
RSV separates Christ from God so it has eliminated the deity of Christ from the verse and does not show that Jesus is God.

other examples attacking deity of Christ you look it up

John 9:35 kjv compared to John 9:35 nasb
Matthew 9:18 kjv compared to Matt.9:18 nasb removes the worship of Jesus.
Jesus accepted Worship because He is God. [Peter refused to accept worship from cornelius because Peter is not God.
Matt. 20:20, Mark 5:6, Luke 24:52 does the same thing in the Nasb, removes the worship of Jesus and therefore the nasb changes attack the doctrine of the deity of Christ.

from the KJV
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 from of old, from everlasting.

Micah 5:2 from rsv
...ruler in Israel, whose origin is from old, from ancient days.

God has no origin. Christ had no origin because He is God.
Saying Christ had an origin, the rsv is denying the deity of Christ.

Vese attacking salvation by faith
from Kjv
1 Peter 2:2 As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby:

from rsv
Like new born babes, long for the pure spiritual milk, that by it you may grow up to salvation.

the rsv has salvation by works, not faith.
Salvation is a free gift of grace; by grace you are saved through faith; it is not of works like it says in ephesians.
It is impossible to grow up to salvation, salvation is a free gift, you don't grow up to it, you don't work for it, you don't gradually obtain it.

I am getting tired of doing this now. I could go on to add verse changes attacking the atonement, second coming of Christ, the Word of God, virgin birth.
There are many of those changes that attack important Chritian doctrines in the modern versions.
See Let's weigh the evidence, by Barry Burton.

 

[Darron Steele]

I do not see where any of these different translations deny the Deity of Christ or salvation by faith. I did read your verse quotations.

There is a big difference between a translator deciding the ancient text does not allude to a precept, versus when the text is translated to deny it.

If you can quote a real translation at some verse that explicitly says that Jesus Christ is not God, or that salvation is not by faith, I might be even minimally persuaded that you have something.

 

[annsni]

Common "arguments" that don't hold water. Remember there were no chapter or verse divisions nor even punctuation in the original manuscripts. Now, for reading IN CONTEXT (KJVOliers hate doing this):

Changes attacking the deity of Christ:

KJV from the byzantine majority text
1 Timothy 3:16 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.
u
Nasb
16By common confession, great is (AF)the mystery of godliness:
He who was (AG)revealed in the flesh,
Was (AH)vindicated in the Spirit,
(AI)Seen by angels,
(AJ)Proclaimed among the nations,
(AK)Believed on in the world,
(AL)Taken up in glory.

The real Word of God, from the KJV says God was manifest in the flesh. The NASB has removed that.--a deceitful sly change
They take out the fact that Jesus is God.

NASB 1 Timothy 3:14-16:

I am writing these things to you, hoping to come to you before long;

but in case I am delayed, I write so that you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth.

By common confession, great is the mystery of godliness:
He who was revealed in the flesh,
Was vindicated in the Spirit,
Seen by angels,
Proclaimed among the nations,
Believed on in the world,
Taken up in glory.

Note the "He" is a pronoun that speaks of Whom was already mentioned. God.


[quote[From the KJV majority text
Romans 14:10 But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.
Romans 14:11 For it is written, [As] I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.
Romans 14:12 So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.

That shows that Christ is God.

From the Nasb
10But you, why do you judge your brother? Or you again, why do you (P)regard your brother with contempt? For (Q)we will all stand before the judgment seat of God.
11For it is written,
"(R)AS I LIVE, SAYS THE LORD, (S)EVERY KNEE SHALL BOW TO ME,
AND EVERY TONGUE SHALL GIVE PRAISE TO GOD."
12So then (T)each one of us will give an account of himself to God.

The word Christ is removed so that there is no proof Christ is God in those scriptures.[/quote]

Christ is constantly shown as God in the NASB. Read 2 Corinthians 5:10 "For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil." Yeah, they wanted to remove the idea that Christ is God but they forgot this other passage. But this is a textual difference.

From the KJV majority text
Acts 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

The RSV has
Acts 20:28
Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God which he obtained with the blood of his own son.

KJV has God's church was purchased by God's blood; therefore Christ is God.
RSV separates Christ from God so it has eliminated the deity of Christ from the verse and does not show that Jesus is God.

Jesus is not God's Son? Wow!! I've never seen an issue with that - never seen anyone see the blood of the Lamb, the Son or the blood of Jesus deny His divinity. That's quite the stretch here.

But then again, the NIV is solid on this, huh? "Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood."

other examples attacking deity of Christ you look it up

John 9:35 kjv compared to John 9:35 nasb

KJV: "Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when he had found him, he said unto him, Dost thou believe on the Son of God?"

NASB: "Jesus heard that they had put him out, and finding him, He said, "Do you believe in the Son of Man?"

Textual difference with a greater support for "Son of Man" rather than "Son of God". However, we see in the KJV the following references FROM JESUS regarding Himself as the "Son of Man"in the book of John: John 1:51; 3:13-14; 5:27, 6:27, 53, 62; 8:28; 12:23, 34; 13:31.

Matthew 9:18 kjv compared to Matt.9:18 nasb removes the worship of Jesus.
Jesus accepted Worship because He is God. [Peter refused to accept worship from cornelius because Peter is not God.
Matt. 20:20, Mark 5:6, Luke 24:52 does the same thing in the Nasb, removes the worship of Jesus and therefore the nasb changes attack the doctrine of the deity of Christ.

Not supported at all. The man bowed down. Do you bow down to others often? No - because that would be worship. NASB did not remove the worship of Jesus. Bowing down is worshipping. Sorry you don't understand that.

from the KJV
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 from of old, from everlasting.

Micah 5:2 from rsv
...ruler in Israel, whose origin is from old, from ancient days.

God has no origin. Christ had no origin because He is God.
Saying Christ had an origin, the rsv is denying the deity of Christ.

Then you deny that Jesus is the son of David. From one of the men who actually did the translation to the NIV who uses the same wording as the RSV:

The NIV translators were not careless in the handling of Old Testament Messianic prophecies or any other doctrines, but good, godly, spiritual scholars differ on the interpretation of certain biblical passages. For example, the Hebrew text at the end of this verse can be translated either (1) "whose goings out are from of old, from days of eternity" or (2) "whose origins are from of old, from ancient times." Those who prefer the first rendering naturally use it to argue for the eternity of the Messiah. Those who prefer the second translation believe that the expression refers to the ancient "origins" of the Messiah in the line of David (as indicated in the Davidic covenant of 2 Samuel 7) and in the tribe of Judah (Gen. 49:10).
The majority of the Committee on Bible Translation felt that the context favored the second view: "Bethlehem...of Judah, out of you [emphasis mine] will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel" (note the emphasis on the origins of the future Davidic Ruler in the Davidic town of Bethlehem). So we put the second rendering in the text and the first one in the footnotes as an alternative. Incidentally, those who favor the second translation still believe in the eternity of the Messiah (and so in the eternal Son of God) and believe that His eternality is clearly taught in other passages, particularly in the New Testament.

(from Accuracy Defined and Illustrated, Dr. Kenneth Barker)

Vese attacking salvation by faith
from Kjv
1 Peter 2:2 As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby:

from rsv
Like new born babes, long for the pure spiritual milk, that by it you may grow up to salvation.

the rsv has salvation by works, not faith.
Salvation is a free gift of grace; by grace you are saved through faith; it is not of works like it says in ephesians.
It is impossible to grow up to salvation, salvation is a free gift, you don't grow up to it, you don't work for it, you don't gradually obtain it.

Just as much as the KJV does in Philippians 2:12 "Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling."

Same reasoning behind both passages. It's not speaking at all against salvation through faith alone. If the RSV believed in that, do you think it would say, "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God --not because of works, lest any man should boast."

I am getting tired of doing this now. I could go on to add verse changes attacking the atonement, second coming of Christ, the Word of God, virgin birth.
There are many of those changes that attack important Chritian doctrines in the modern versions.
See Let's weigh the evidence, by Barry Burton.

Yet if you studied the evidence rather than reading some man's opinion, you'd see that the modern versions (which, by the way, no one that I know of uses the RSV any longer - last time I knew of it's use in MY world was when I was in 4th grade at a Dutch Reformed church). The atonement, the second coming of Christ, the Word of God, the virgin birth are all included in every modern version that I've ever read - even the versions that are NOT valid including the Jehovah's Witness Bible!! The thing they deny is the fact that Jesus is God but even that can be proven with their bible.

Now go take a rest. It's hard to go on a useless witch hunt.

 

[Rippon]

Excellent post Ann.Thank you.

 

[annsni]

Excellent post Ann.Thank you.

You're welcome. I find so many see the lists and comments of "the other versions did this..." and don't really do any research themselves. It's sad. They're also making the KJV the measuring stick when the measuring stick should be the actual manuscript evidence we have. It's just amazing to me how many take things hook, line and sinker when it comes to Bible things. Berean? They are not.

 

[Marcia]

A note on the "he" of 1 Tim. 3.16 from the online NET Bible:
The Byzantine text along with a few other witnesses (אc Ac C2 D2 Ψ [88 pc] 1739 1881 � vgms) read θεός (qeos, “God”) for ὅς (Jos, “who”). Most significant among these witnesses is 1739; the second correctors of some of the other mss tend to conform to the medieval standard, the Byzantine text, and add no independent voice to the discussion. A few mss have ὁ θεός (so 88 pc), a reading that is a correction on the anarthrous θεός. On the other side, the masculine relative pronoun ὅς is strongly supported by א* A* C* F G 33 365 pc Did Epiph. Significantly, D* and virtually the entire Latin tradition read the neuter relative pronoun, ὅ (Jo, “which”), a reading that indirectly supports ὅς since it could not easily have been generated if θεός had been in the text. Thus, externally, there is no question as to what should be considered original: The Alexandrian and Western traditions are decidedly in favor of ὅς. Internally, the evidence is even stronger. What scribe would change θεός to ὅς intentionally? “Who” is not only a theologically pale reading by comparison; it also is much harder (since the relative pronoun has no obvious antecedent, probably the reason for the neuter pronoun of the Western tradition). Intrinsically, the rest of 3:16, beginning with ὅς, appears to form a six-strophed hymn. As such, it is a text that is seemingly incorporated into the letter without syntactical connection. Hence, not only should we not look for an antecedent for ὅς (as is often done by commentators), but the relative pronoun thus is not too hard a reading (or impossible, as Dean Burgon believed). Once the genre is taken into account, the relative pronoun fits neatly into the author’s style (cf. also Col 1:15; Phil 2:6 for other places in which the relative pronoun begins a hymn, as was often the case in poetry of the day). On the other hand, with θεός written as a nomen sacrum, it would have looked very much like the relative pronoun: q-=s vs. os. Thus, it may have been easy to confuse one for the other. This, of course, does not solve which direction the scribes would go, although given their generally high Christology and the bland and ambiguous relative pronoun, it is doubtful that they would have replaced θεός with ὅς. How then should we account for θεός? It appears that sometime after the 2nd century the θεός reading came into existence, either via confusion with ὅς or as an intentional alteration to magnify Christ and clear up the syntax at the same time. Once it got in, this theologically rich reading was easily able to influence all the rest of the mss it came in contact with (including mss already written, such as א A C D). That this reading did not arise until after the 2nd century is evident from the Western reading, ὅ. The neuter relative pronoun is certainly a “correction” of ὅς, conforming the gender to that of the neuter μυστήριον (musthrion, “mystery”). What is significant in this reading is (1) since virtually all the Western witnesses have either the masculine or neuter relative pronoun, the θεός reading was apparently unknown to them in the 2nd century (when the “Western” text seems to have originated, though its place of origination was most likely in the east); they thus supply strong indirect evidence of ὅς outside of Egypt in the 2nd century; (2) even 2nd century scribes were liable to misunderstand the genre, feeling compelled to alter the masculine relative pronoun because it appeared to them to be too harsh. The evidence, therefore, for ὅς is quite compelling, both externally and internally. As TCGNT 574 notes, “no uncial (in the first hand) earlier than the eighth or ninth century (Ψ) supports θεός; all ancient versions presuppose ὅς or ὅ; and no patristic writer prior to the last third of the fourth century testifies to the reading θεός.” Thus, the cries of certain groups that θεός has to be original must be seen as special pleading in this case. To argue that heretics tampered with the text here is self-defeating, for most of the Western fathers who quoted the verse with the relative pronoun were quite orthodox, strongly affirming the deity of Christ. They would have dearly loved such a reading as θεός. Further, had heretics introduced a variant to θεός, a far more natural choice would have been Χριστός (Cristos, “Christ”) or κύριος (kurios, “Lord”), since the text is self-evidently about Christ, but it is not self-evidently a proclamation of his deity. (See ExSyn 341-42, for a summary discussion on this issue and additional bibliographic references.)

 

[antiaging]

Common "arguments" that don't hold water. Remember there were no chapter or verse divisions nor even punctuation in the original manuscripts. Now, for reading IN CONTEXT (KJVOliers hate doing this):



Then you deny that Jesus is the son of David. From one of the men who actually did the translation to the NIV who uses the same wording as the RSV:

The NIV translators were not careless in the handling of Old Testament Messianic prophecies or any other doctrines, but good, godly, spiritual scholars differ on the interpretation of certain biblical passages. For example, the Hebrew text at the end of this verse can be translated either (1) "whose goings out are from of old, from days of eternity" or (2) "whose origins are from of old, from ancient times." Those who prefer the first rendering naturally use it to argue for the eternity of the Messiah. Those who prefer the second translation believe that the expression refers to the ancient "origins" of the Messiah in the line of David (as indicated in the Davidic covenant of 2 Samuel 7) and in the tribe of Judah (Gen. 49:10).
The majority of the Committee on Bible Translation felt that the context favored the second view: "Bethlehem...of Judah, out of you [emphasis mine] will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel" (note the emphasis on the origins of the future Davidic Ruler in the Davidic town of Bethlehem). So we put the second rendering in the text and the first one in the footnotes as an alternative. Incidentally, those who favor the second translation still believe in the eternity of the Messiah (and so in the eternal Son of God) and believe that His eternality is clearly taught in other passages, particularly in the New Testament.

(from Accuracy Defined and Illustrated, Dr. Kenneth Barker)




.

NIV error about Lucifer:


From the NIV:
Isaiah 14:12 How you have fallen from heaven,
O morning star, son of the dawn!
You have been cast down to the earth,
you who once laid low the nations!

In the real Old Testament Isaiah, The massoretic text of the King James version, Satan is never called morning star; Satan is called Lucifer. The modern bible versions put morning star there because of the theology of the translators. It does not come from the original Hebrew scriptures and morning star is a mistranslation.
The original Hebrew in the massoretic text is Helel ben shachar, which is accurately translated Lucifer, son of the morning in the King James version bible.
The modern translations give a name as if the Hebrew was Shachar kokab, ben shakar, or morning star son of the morning (dawn).
This is in error because KoKab, the word for star appears nowhere in the text.
Also morning appears only once in the original Hebrew, not twice as the modern versions say.
The editors of the modern versions deny the fall of Lucifer in their theology so they change the wording of the translation.
The King James versions shows how the authentic Hebrew should be translated:
Isaiah 14:12 "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!" how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
http://www.angelfire.com/la2/prophet1/prayingtoanewgod.html

OK, let's talk about in context, with the rest of the bible.

2 Peter 1:19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:

Day star is the morning star; it is the planet venus which shows up to herald the dawn

You cannot reconcile the NIV translation of Isaiah 14:12 with 2 Peter 1:19, unless you try to say something like "someone that fell from heaven, who is evil, will arise in your hearts." or Lucifer will arise in your hearts if you read prophecy--that is certainly false.
Look at the context of the verses in Isaiah 14. Is is referring to a wicked and evil ruler, that fell from heaven. If Lucifer is called the morning star, it is a serious contradition with 2 Peter 1:19.

The NIV translation is a direct and deliberate mistranslation because of the theology of the translaters.

 

[Darron Steele]

...
The editors of the modern versions deny the fall of Lucifer in their theology so they change the wording of the translation.
The King James versions shows how the authentic Hebrew should be translated:
Isaiah 14:12 "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!" how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
http://www.angelfire.com/la2/prophet1/prayingtoanewgod.html

OK, let's talk about in context, with the rest of the bible.

2 Peter 1:19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:

Day star is the morning star; it is the planet venus which shows up to herald the dawn

You cannot reconcile the NIV translation of Isaiah 14:12 with 2 Peter 1:19, unless you try to say something like "someone that fell from heaven, who is evil, will arise in your hearts." or Lucifer will arise in your hearts if you read prophecy--that is certainly false.
Look at the context of the verses in Isaiah 14. Is is referring to a wicked and evil ruler, that fell from heaven. If Lucifer is called the morning star, it is a serious contradition with 2 Peter 1:19.

The NIV translation is a direct and deliberate mistranslation because of the theology of the translaters.

You are alleging that the NIV translators think Jesus Christ is Satan? I have heard that one before. Is that what you are trying to say?

I hope you have better sense than that.

If you are just trying to say that the NIV translators deny the fall of Satan, do you have any quotations from the translators saying so? That is a pretty big accusation to make based on conjecture rather than evidence.

 

[sag38]

Do we not have a "beat that horse" smiley? Beat that horse boys. Beat that horse. The MV's make Jesus a liar. The MV's make Jesus satan. The MV's take away the blood. It's a dead horse.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Tee Hee, I don't know if I should laugh or cry.
Post #6 above misquotes 1 Timothy 3:16 (NASB):

A 16By common confession, great is (AF)the mystery of godliness:
He who was (AG)revealed in the flesh,
Was (AH)vindicated in the Spirit,
(AI)Seen by angels,
(AJ)Proclaimed among the nations,
(AK)Believed on in the world,
(AL)Taken up in glory.

That seemed rather strange to me, so I checked out 1 Timothy 4:16 in biblegateway.com I'm required by Acts 17:10-11 to check these scripture out to see if they are correct. Here is what biblegatway says, the above and:

1. 1 Timothy 3:16 : Rom 16:25
2. 1 Timothy 3:16 : John 1:14; 1 Pet 1:20; 1 John 3:5, 8
3. 1 Timothy 3:16 : Rom 3:4
4. 1 Timothy 3:16 : Luke 2:13; 24:4; 1 Pet 1:12
5. 1 Timothy 3:16 : Rom 16:26; 2 Cor 1:19; Col 1:23
6. 1 Timothy 3:16 : 2 Thess 1:10
7. 1 Timothy 3:16 : Mark 16:19; Acts 1:9

Note that the crossreference says that the meaning is found in 1 Timothy 3:16 and one, two, or three other places. I.E. none of these meanings are found exclusively in 1 Timothy 3:16:

[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]By common confession, great is the R122 mystery of godliness: He who was revealed R123 in the flesh, Was vindicated R124 F36 in F37 the Spirit, Seen R125 by angels, Proclaimed R126 among the nations, Believed R127 on in the world, Taken R128 up in glory.
[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]FOOTNOTES:
F36: Or {justified}
F37: Or {by}
[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]CROSS REFERENCES:
[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]R122: Romans 16:25
R123: John 1:14; 1 Peter 1:20; 1 John 3:5,8
R124: Romans 3:4
R125: Luke 2:13; 24:4; 1 Peter 1:12
R126: Romans 16:26; 2 Corinthians 1:19; Colossians 1:23
R127: 2 Thessalonians 1:10
R128: Mark 16:19; Acts 1:9

[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]However, it is common courtesy to quote ONLY THE BIBLE (and not somebody's note on what they think the cross reference should be). Yes, this takes a little editing (or I know how to turn off the cross references in crosswalk.com) but this is what one gets:

[/FONT]In crosswalk.com the NASB says at 1 Timothy 3:16:

[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]By common confession, great is the mystery of godliness: He who was revealed in the flesh, Was vindicated in the Spirit, Seen by angels, Proclaimed among the nations, Believed on in the world, Taken up in glory. [/FONT]

From post #6: // The real Word of God, from the KJV says God was manifest in the flesh. The NASB has removed that.--a deceitful sly change
They take out the fact that Jesus is God. //

Duh the NASB says "[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]He who was revealed in the flesh' who is 'He' here. (to understand simple English, one needs to figure out who the pronouns (like 'He') are refering to. This noun or noun-structure (any English language than can be a noun-like structure) [/FONT]is usually before the pronoun. The very word before 'He' in the sentence, 'Godliness" implies we are taking about GOD, 'He' means 'God'. This sentence fragment says He (God) was revealed in the flesh (Jesus)

Crossreference Romans 3:24 (NASB):
[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; [/FONT]
His (God's) redemption is in Jesus (the flesh-person).

Nothing is missing in 1 Tim 3:16 (NASB)
If something was missing in 1 Tim 3:16, it is present in Romans 3:24 (NASB).

// The real Word of God, from the KJV
says God was manifest in the flesh.

Amen! Preach it! that is what the Word of God, the KJV says.

// The NASB has removed that.--a deceitful sly change
They take out the fact that Jesus is God. //

This statement is flat wrong.

The real Word of God, from the NASB says God was manifest in the flesh

read my trailer, we have two different words of God sayingGod was manifest in the flesh
Two witnesses agree, as required by God's Law.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Steele: // You are alleging that the NIV translators think Jesus Christ is Satan? I have heard that one before. Is that what you are trying to say.//

Tee Hee, the first time I read it was in the Atheist Commentary on the Bible. They said the KJV (they called it 'the Bible' - strange, Atheists and /a group I'm not allowed to mention on this board/ call the KJV the only Bible) shows in Rev 22:16 that Jesus is the Morning Star and in Isaiah 14:12 that Satan is the Morning Star - which is it?

Sorry, but 'Lucifer' is the Latin Vulgate term used in Isaiah 14:12. I thought the KJV didn't use the devil's Latin Vulgate version :laugh:


Isaiah 14:12 (Latin Vulgate)
[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]quomodo cecidisti de caelo lucifer qui mane oriebaris corruisti in terram qui vulnerabas gentes[/FONT]

 

[Ed Edwards]

Do we not have a "beat that horse" smiley? Beat that horse boys. Beat that horse. The MV's make Jesus a liar. The MV's make Jesus satan. The MV's take away the blood. It's a dead horse.

Sorry, I disagree. This 'MV's make Jesus Satan horse will be beaten until he is buried. It will probably be beaten under a mountain of Vuglar Latin verses :tonofbricks:

 

[annsni]

NIV error about Lucifer:


From the NIV:
Isaiah 14:12 How you have fallen from heaven,
O morning star, son of the dawn!
You have been cast down to the earth,
you who once laid low the nations!

In the real Old Testament Isaiah, The massoretic text of the King James version, Satan is never called morning star; Satan is called Lucifer.

The modern bible versions put morning star there because of the theology of the translators. It does not come from the original Hebrew scriptures and morning star is a mistranslation.
The original Hebrew in the massoretic text is Helel ben shachar, which is accurately translated Lucifer, son of the morning in the King James version bible.
The modern translations give a name as if the Hebrew was Shachar kokab, ben shakar, or morning star son of the morning (dawn).
This is in error because KoKab, the word for star appears nowhere in the text.
Also morning appears only once in the original Hebrew, not twice as the modern versions say.
The editors of the modern versions deny the fall of Lucifer in their theology so they change the wording of the translation.
The King James versions shows how the authentic Hebrew should be translated:
Isaiah 14:12 "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!" how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
http://www.angelfire.com/la2/prophet1/prayingtoanewgod.html

OK, let's talk about in context, with the rest of the bible.

2 Peter 1:19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:

Day star is the morning star; it is the planet venus which shows up to herald the dawn

You cannot reconcile the NIV translation of Isaiah 14:12 with 2 Peter 1:19, unless you try to say something like "someone that fell from heaven, who is evil, will arise in your hearts." or Lucifer will arise in your hearts if you read prophecy--that is certainly false.
Look at the context of the verses in Isaiah 14. Is is referring to a wicked and evil ruler, that fell from heaven. If Lucifer is called the morning star, it is a serious contradition with 2 Peter 1:19.

The NIV translation is a direct and deliberate mistranslation because of the theology of the translaters.

Incorrect. Did you know the term "Lucifer" came into the translations through Jerome and the Latin Vulgate? Oh, and apparently you have not seen the original KJV1611 because "day starre" is written in the very side of the verse in the translators notes for alternate readings (which was in the true KJV 1611 but not in the new versions - maybe showing the later printers bias against God's Word?). There's a lot more really good reading here: http://www.kjv-only.com/isa14_12.html

Of course the attack on the brothers who translated the Bible into the NIV is quite harsh and uncalled for. Want to hear what one ACTUALLY said?

"The Hebrew for "morning star" was translated "Lucifer" in the Latin Vulgate, and the KJV then borrowed Lucifer (from the Latin) in it's rendering. Although "morning star" is the correct rendering, scholars have debated who is meant by the words (whether the king of Babylon or Satan or both). Christ, of course, is the true Morning Star. Numbers 24:17, 1 Peter 1:19, Revelation 22:16.

 

[Ed Edwards]

From the NIV
Isaiah 14:12 How you have fallen from heaven,
O morning star, son of the dawn!
You have been cast down to the earth,
you who once laid low the nations!

From my NIV:
Isaiah 14:12 How you have fallen from heaven,
morning star, son of the dawn!
You have been cast down to the earth,
you who once laid low the nations!

O.K., just thought I'd check and see if it was cut & pasted correctly.

Speaking of Isaiah 14:12 post #12 sez: // In the real Old Testament Isaiah, The massoretic text of the King James version, Satan is never called morning star; Satan is called Lucifer. The modern bible versions put morning star there because of the theology of the translators. It does not come from the original Hebrew scriptures and morning star is a mistranslation. //

Wrong, I hope you didn't copy this from an unreliable source, it will make somebody here look abject.

Look what the theology of the translators made them do in the KJV:

Isaiah 14:12 (KJV1611 Version):

How art thou fallen from heauen,
||O Lucifer, sonne of the morning?
how art thou cut downe to the ground,
which didst weaken the nations?

Margin Note:
||Or, O daystarre

The KJV says that O daystarre could be used instead of 'O lucifer' and make perfectly good meaning.

So the KJV claims that 'the daystarre' is the 'son of the morning'.
That is just common knowledge lots of people (even some home schooled) know: Venus, is called 'day star' when Venus can be seen in the day time (Venus is the third brightest object in the sky being led by the Sun and the Moon.) When Venus preceeds the Sun it is called the 'Morning Star'; when it follows the Sun, it is called the 'Evening Star'.

Another thing:
In Revelation 22:18 Jesus is called the Bright and Morning Star. It is a metaphor. Jesus is not the Bright and Morning Star; Jesus is my Lord and Savior - Won't you let Him be your Lord and Savior also (PM me if you want to find out how to do that)? Jesus is LIKE the Bright and Morning Star - Jesus precedes the True Dawn of God's Truth.

In Isaiah 14:12 the King of Babylon (who might be a type of the Devil ?) is compared by a metaphor to the Morning Star (Day Star, or whatever). Neither the King of Babylon nor the Lead Devil IS the Morning Star. Both the King of Babylon and the Lead Devil think they are the Morning Star - bringing Light to Mankind. But both the King of Babylon & the Lead Devil are FALSE LIGHT. Jesus is the Truth, the Light, and the Way.

So sorry, if your Doctrine is based on one passage that is usually misunderstood - you loose because you didn't check two Bibles (or in this case did not even bother to read THE KING JAMES VERSION)

 

[antiaging]

You are alleging that the NIV translators think Jesus Christ is Satan? I have heard that one before. Is that what you are trying to say?

I hope you have better sense than that.

If you are just trying to say that the NIV translators deny the fall of Satan, do you have any quotations from the translators saying so? That is a pretty big accusation to make based on conjecture rather than evidence.

No it is not a big accusation when you consider who the translators represent.

The text of the NIV was basically that found in the United Bible
Societies/Nestle-Aland printed Greek New Testament text. I
subsequently discovered that this modern UBS/Nestle-Aland "eclectic"
text forms the basis for most of the modern translations of the New
Testament.
The joint UBS/Nestle-Aland Editorial
Committee was presided over by the renowned Jesuit named Carlo Maria
Martini, Cardinal Archbishop of Milan (the largest Roman Catholic
diocese in the world), President of the Council of European Bishops,
former Rector of the Pontifical Biblical Institute, "Rector
Magnificus" of the Gregorian University...,
4 different sources have I found that state that there is Lucifer worship in the hierarchy of the Roman catholic church. They don't believe in Satan. They believe in Lucifer and are Luciferians.
Two former Jesuit priests said it, Alberto Rivera, and Malachi Martin.
Archbishop Milingo said it, that there was devil worship in the catholic hiearchy.
And the author of the article on the Jesuit General said it.
Look up Jesuit general or "the most powerful man in the World" on Google.
[That's the guy catholic rulers, kings and catholic spy presidents take orders from.]
In the article he sites that there is Lucifer worship among the Jesuits.
As I stated before, Rome is behind the modern versions.
If they really are Luciferians as those men said, they would make a change like that to deny Lucifer fell from heaven, so change the name in the verse to morning star.
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False Religions/Roman Catholicism/pope-devil-masonic_lodge.htm
go to that website; the references are for real.

With thousands in attendance at Rome's Fatima 2000 International Congress on World Peace, a respected Archbishop, Emmanuel Milingo, strode to the podium.
...Archbishop Milingo went on to make an accusation which sent hurricane force shockwaves throughout the Catholic community. According to Milingo, the devil is actually protected by the Catholic Church:

The devil in the Catholic Church is so protected now that he is like an animal protected by the government; put on a game preserve that outlaws anyone, especially hunters, from trying to capture or kill it. The devil within the Church today is actually protected by certain Church authorities from the official devil hunter in the Church--the exorcist. So much so that the exorcist today is forbidden to attack the devil. The devil is so protected that the one who is the hunter, the exorcist, is forbidden to do his job.

In a subsequent interview, the courageous archbishop stated: "Certainly, there are priests and bishops alike who are followers of Satan." When asked whether cardinals or even the Pope himself were guilty of this repulsive heresy, Milingo responded that, because he is an archbishop, he does not feel it is proper for him to name or comment about superior officials. The archbishop's silence, of course, spoke volumes.


Revelation 13:4 And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast: and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him?

Just one more indicator that the antichrist will come through the papacy like Martin Luther, John Calvin, John Wesley, Isaac Newton, Tyndale, Moody, Finney and Spurgeon said.