Modern Versions simple cannot be trusted!

aa0310 asked:

I take it from your response, that you are a student in Textual Criticism?

No, I am a rhetorician, and I find yours shrill and lacking in substance.

 

Any collection of Bibles can be dangerous if they are kept on a high shelf in an area where earthquakes are common. Otherwise, the only thing dangerous about the best of the modern versions is that a man, woman, or child may read them and actually understand them and get saved and cause the angels in heaven to rejoice.

 

Key phrase here that Craig has clued in on:

"..the best of modern versions..."

I think we could all acknowledge that there does exist such a thing as a "dangerous" version such as special agenda version written to promote a cult?

 

quote: [/]Modern versions are dangerous.[/i]

Yes...they're made of thicker paper, which makes them easier for some Al-Qaida operative to hollow out & place a plastic explosive within. We've heard from an authoritative source that they're poison, so detonating an MV bomb is doubly dangerous.

"Beware of Al-Qaidas carrying modern Bibles."

 

Askjo,

I disagree. Not always.

No one withess me how to become saved.

I was saved by readin different Version - New English Version in August 1988. Rev. 20:11-15 made me so guilty, not want go to lake of fire, and miss Jesus Christ. So, I bowed down and pray talked to Jesus in sign, asked Christ to forgive my sins. I was saved in August 17, 1988.

God can use ANY versions to touch person's heart. Because ANY versions do have truths same as KJV does. No difference.

All versions teaching the same doctrine as KJV have. All versions do teaching on the gospel same as KJV does.

Three versions which I am against: Book of Mormons; New World Translation, & Korah too. I consider, all of these are not God's Word, because all of these do not use word, "Jesus". Obivously, these are false Bibles.

All versions (Christianity) Bibles do mentioned on Jesus Christ & salvation too. So, there is no difference between different verions & KJV. Both are same bease upon the doctrine of salvation & Jesus Christ.

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!

 

KJV Titus 2:13 Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;

NAS Titus 2:13 looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus;

ESV John 1:18 No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known.

KJV John 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

(John 1:18 is more to do with a textual variant and the meaning of monogenes in that passage:

From BDAG or BAGD, or however you want to put it (the Greek font is non-existent obviously, so pardon the font problems)
-monogenes-
1. pert. to being the only one of its kind within a specific relationship, one and only, only (so mostly, incl. Judg 11:34; Tob 3:15; 8:17) of children: of Isaac, Abraham’s only son (Jos., Ant. 1, 222) Hb 11:17. Of an only son (PsSol 18:4; TestSol 20:2; ParJer 7:26; Plut., Lycurgus 59 [31, 8]; Jos., Ant. 20, 20) Lk 7:12; 9:38. Of a daughter (Diod. S. 4, 73, 2) of Jairus 8:42. (On the motif of a child’s death before that of a parent s. EpigrAnat 13, ’89, 128f, no. 2; 18, ’91, 94 no. 4 [244/45 AD]; GVI nos. 1663-69.)

2. pert. to being the only one of its kind or class, unique (in kind) of someth. that is the only example of its category (Cornutus 27 p, 49, 13 ei-j k. monogenh.j o` ko,smoj evsti,. monogenh/ k. mo,na evsti,n=‘unique and alone’; Pla., Timaeus 92c; Theosophien 181, §56, 27). Of a mysterious bird, the Phoenix 1 Cl 25:2.—In the Johannine lit. (s. also ApcEsdr and ApcSed: o` monogenh,j ui`o,j; Hippol., Ref. 8, 10, 3; Did., Gen. 89, 18; u`mnou/me,n ge qeo.n kai. to.n m. auvtou/ Orig., C. Cels. 8, 67, 14; cp. h` du,namij evkei,nh h` m. Hippol., Ref. 10, 16, 6) monogenh.j ui`o,j is used only of Jesus. The renderings only, unique may be quite adequate for all its occurrences here (so M-M., NRSV et al.; DMoody, JBL 72, ’53, 213-19; FGrant, ATR 36, ’54, 284-87; GPendrick, NTS 41, ’95, 587-600). to.n ui`o.n to.n m. e;dwken J 3:16 (Philo Bybl. [100 AD]: 790 fgm. 2 ch. 10, 33 Jac. [in Eus., PE 1, 10, 33]: Cronus offers up his monogenh.j ui`o,j). o` m. ui`o.j tou/ qeou/ vs. 18; to.n ui`o.n to.n m. avpe,stalken o` qeo,j 1J 4:9; cp. Dg 10:2. On the expr. do,xan w`j monogenou/j para. patro,j J 1:14 s. Hdb. ad loc. and PWinter, Zeitschrift für Rel. u. Geistesgeschichte 5, ’53, 335-65 (Engl.). See also Hdb. on vs. 18 where, beside the rdg. monogenh.j qeo,j (considered by many the orig.) an only-begotten one, God (acc. to his real being; i.e. uniquely divine as God’s son and transcending all others alleged to be gods) or a uniquely begotten deity (for the perspective s. J 10:33-36), another rdg. o` monogenh.j ui`o,j is found. MPol 20:2 in the doxology dia. paido.j auvtou/ tou/ monogenou/j VIhsou/ Cristou/. Some (e.g. WBauer, Hdb.; JBulman, Calvin Theological Journal 16, ’81, 56-79; JDahms, NTS 29, ’83, 222-32) prefer to regard m. as somewhat heightened in mng. in J and 1J to only-begotten or begotten of the Only One, in view of the emphasis on genna/sqai evk qeou/ (J 1:13 al.); in this case it would be analogous to prwto,tokoj (Ro 8:29; Col 1:15 al.).—On the mng. of monogenh,j in history of religion s. the material in Hdb.(3 )25f on J 1:14 (also Plut., Mor. 423a Pla,twn … auvtw/| dh, fhsi dokei/n e[na tou/ton [sc. to.n ko,smon] ei=nai monogenh/ tw/| qew/| kai. avgaphto,n; Wsd 7:22 of sofi,aÇ e;sti evn auvth/| pneu/ma noero.n a[gion monogene,j.—Vett. Val. 11, 32) as well as the lit. given there, also HLeisegang, Der Bruder des Erlösers: Aggeloj I 1925, 24-33; RBultmann J (comm., KEK) ’50, 47 n. 2; 55f.—DELG s.v. me,nw. M-M. EDNT. TW. Sv.)

[ March 07, 2005, 03:50 PM: Message edited by: Spoudazo ]

 

Does that include the modern versions of the KJV, 1762, 1769, etc? </font>[/QUOTE]Are you saying then, that when it comes to important passages that deal with the Deity of Jesus Christ, like 1 Timothy 3:16, John 3:13, 1 Corinthians 10:9; 15:47, etc, that you would put a blind trust in the NIV, for example, above the KJV, which has the correct, original reading, as per the evidence for the text? </font>[/QUOTE]1 Tim. 3:16

"theos" vs "[h]os," the two textual variants. Conservative scholars are on both sides of this variant. The late Burgon, the present-day Dr. James White among others view "theos" as being the correct reading for some textual reasons as well as "common sense" reasons regarding how "theos" was shortened in various uncial manuscripts, etc.

On the other said you have the late Dr. A.T. Robertson, the present-day Dr. Dan Wallace of Dallas Theological Seminary and several others who think "[h]os" is the correct reading for textual support reasons.

*Side Note*
Dr. James White is a textual consultant for the NASB (NASU), but I suppose he hasn't persuaded the majority of them to go to "theos." Again, this isn't a doctrinal matter, but a textual matter.

 

Have you compared Rom 9:5, Titus 2:13, 2 Pet 1:1, John 1:18, etc?

 

Regarding John 3:13

Go read A Textual Commentary on the Greek New testament pp.174-175. I'm not typing all that out and dealing with the Greek font issues there

To summarize some of the textual information available, P66 and P75 both stand against "ANQRWPOU hO WN TWi OURANWi"

A part of the committe that worked on the UBS GNT favored this reading, but the majority didn't.

 

1 Cor. 10:9

Ummmm,

ESV 1 Corinthians 10:9 We must not put Christ to the test, as some of them did and were destroyed by serpents,

KJV 1 Corinthians 10:9 Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents.


'nough said.

 

1 Cor. 15:47,

Marcion (the heretic) preferred the reading KURIOS, see [Sarcasm On], I *told* you the KJV was trying to "[move] mankind to the antichrist's one world religion" [Sarcasm Off](quote from the front of NABV )

 

This BV/Translations debate does not talk about the salvation, but this talks about translation, Greek & Hebrew texts, inaccurate and accurate versions. You seem to misunderstand what I talk about.

Any versions where you can find the salvation or anyone led you to Jesus Christ by using any versions.

No, no! You misunderstand me.

Wrong! For example, most modern versions do not have the doctrine of Trinity (See 1 John 5:7), the important doctrine of SALVATION (see Acts 8:37). Modern versions and the KJV are NOT same.

Deafposttrib, read carefully! The KJV is based on the Textus Receptus. Most modern versions are based on the W-H (Westcott/Hort text). TR and WH are much different.

100% wrong! Modern versions omitted the names of Jesus Christ in the New Testament 200 times!. The warning is Rev. 22:18-19.

 

So is the KJV. </font>[/QUOTE]Provide the evidence - prove me.

 

Once again a statement with not proof. </font>[/QUOTE]Go to look for information in the website. You will find the information that was written by Dr. M. H. Reynolds, Editor of Foundation Magazine.

 

Askjo: "TR and WH are much different."

How different. Give me a number.
Without a number you are dealing with opinion.

Askjo: "Modern versions omitted the names of Jesus Christ
in the New Testament 200 times!. The warning is Rev. 22:18-19."

1. I doubt your number '200'. If you counted them yourself,
then i might listen.
If you quoted your source, i might listen.

2. My opinion is:
The KJV used sources that added the names of Jesus Christ
two hundred times. The warning is Rev 22:18-19.

 

Many modern versions do not have those VERSES, but they still contain those DOCTRINES. Do you believe the KJV does not have the doctrine of the Holy Spirit (see Acts 4:25) or the preexistence of Christ (Jude 1:25)? Of course not.

No, not much different. Approx 5%, and most of these differences are inconsequential.

You have claimed this before, have never produced the list of 200 places, and have been proven wrong. I personally have examined and compared every single individual place the name of Jesus occurs in the KJV, NIV, NASB and others, and you are bearing false witness.

 

So is the KJV. </font>[/QUOTE]Provide the evidence - prove me. </font>[/QUOTE]I already did. Want more? Visit your local Mormon temple.

 

I am sure that God bless you, aa0310!!

 

If they omitted verses, they omitted the doctrines.

Modern versions ADDED them.

You are right, but you got wrong number. Not 5%. It is 7%.

You got 5%. 5% = How many?

Everett W. Fowler evaluated versions of the New Testament. That is what he did.

Sorry, you are wrong. Everett did his job and counted them.