NET version corruption

[Psalm145 3]

I checked out the NET Bible version (New English Translation), and found that it is just another counterfeit Bible in a long line of perverted translations of corrupted text.

The footnotes in this version show that the authors think the verbally inspired Words of God have been lost. The Reformation Bibles, of which the KJV is the crowning jewel, were translated from a text that has been handed down through the centuries and accepted by God's people as the inerrant Word of God. But then along come these "scholars" hissing like serpents saying, "Oh, tsk, tsk, tsk, your Bible is full of errors, let us correct that for you."

Here are just a few words given by inspiration of God that these "scholars" tell us to cast aside.

Matthew 17:21 -- COMPLETELY removed from NET.
KJV says "Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting."
The footnotes in the NET bible say, "This verse...is almost certainly not original."

Matthew 18:11 -- COMPLETELY removed from NET.
KJV says, "For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost."
Footnotes in NET says that this verse "is almost certainly not original, being borrowed, as it were, from the parallel in Luke 19:10."

Matthew 23:14 -- COMPLETELY removed from NET.
KJV says, "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation."
NET footnotes says this verse "is almost certainly not original."

Mark 7:16 -- COMPLETELY removed from NET.
The King James Bible says, "If any man have ears to hear, let him hear."
NET footnotes says this verse "is almost certainly not an original part of the Greek text of Mark."

Mark 9:44 and 46 -- COMPLETELY removed from NET.
KJV says verse 44 - "Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched." Verse 46 -"Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched."
NET footnotes say of these two verses, "This appears to be a scribal addition from v. 48 and is almost certainly not an original part of the Greek text of Mark."

Mark 11:26 -- COMPLETELY removed from NET.
KJV says, "But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses."
NET footnotes says, "The verse is included in most later mss...and is not likely to be original. It is probably an assimilation to Matt 6:15."

Mark 15:28 -- COMPLETELY removed from NET.
KJV says "And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors."
NET notes say, "It was almost certainly not an original part of Mark’s Gospel."

Luke 17:36 -- COMPLETELY removed from NET.
KJV says, "Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left."
NET notes say "It is not well enough attested to be original."

John 5:4 -- COMPLETELY removed from NET.
KJV says, "For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had."
NET footnotes say "Few textual scholars today would accept the authenticity of any portion of vv. 3b-4, for they are not found in the earliest and best witnesses..."

Acts 8:37 -- COMPLETELY removed from NET.
KJV says "And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."
NET notes say "It is clearly not a part of the original text of Acts."

Acts 15:34 -- COMPLETELY removed from NET.
KJV says, "Notwithstanding it pleased Silas to abide there still."
NET footnotes say, "The verse is almost certainly not a part of the original text of Acts, but was added to harmonize with the statement about Silas in v. 40."

Acts 24:7 -- COMPLETELY removed from NET.
KJV says, "But the chief captain Lysias came upon us, and with great violence took him away out of our hands"
NET footnotes say, "This verse (and parts of verses) is most likely not a part of the original text of Acts, for not only is it lacking from the better witnesses, there is no easy explanation as to how such could be missing from them."

Acts 28:29 -- COMPLETELY removed from NET.
KJV says, "And when he had said these words, the Jews departed, and had great reasoning among themselves."
NET footnote says, "This verse is almost certainly not a part of the original text of Acts, as it lacks the best credentials."

Romans 16:24 -- COMPLETELY removed from NET.
KJV says, "The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen."
NET footnote says, "The strength of the external evidence, combined with uncertainty in other mss over where the verse should be located and the fact that it is a repetition of v. 20b, strongly favors omission of the verse."

1 John 5:7 -- The most important part of this verse is COMPLETELY removed from NET.
NET says, "For there are three that testify" That's it! That's all it says! This is one of the GREATEST verses testifying of the trinity.
The anonymous authors of the notes in the NET say of this verse, "...the evidence—both external and internal—is decidedly against
its authenticity."
The KJV, which was translated from the words that have been accepted as the inerrant Word of God throughout history by God's people says, "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."

Don't let Satan deceive you with the same seed of doubt that he planted in Eve's mind in the garden when he said, "Yea, hath God said...?"

Check your New International Versions and your New American Standard, these same verses are taken out of the main body of text because those versions are based on the same corrupted Greek text as the NET.

Luke 4:4 And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.

 

[Ed Edwards]

This is getting boring.
We discuss this every fortnight.
Why is the KJV1769 I have deceives
by NOT mentioning that it is a KJV1769?
Why does my KJV1769 deceptively
NOT mention that these verses have
disputed sources?

When will the deception end and the
truth be made known? What dark purposes
do certain people who know better have
to continue to deceive innocent people?

 

[Ed Edwards]

Pfalmes CXLV:3 (KJV1611):

Great is the LORD, and greatly
to be praised : +and his greatness
is vnsearchable.

Sidenote: + Heb. and of his
greatnesse there is no search,

Pfalmes CXLV:3 (KJV1611, second best translation):

Great is the LORD, and greatly
to be praised : and of his
greatnesse there is no search.

Now if a person has the REAL King
James Version, the 1611 Edition, then
one has at least some translator
notes and a bit of honesty.

 

[skanwmatos]

Originally posted by Ed Edwards:
Now if a person has the REAL King
James Version, the 1611 Edition, then
one has at least some translator
notes and a bit of honesty.

Mr. Edwards, may I point out, with all due respect to your age and experience, that a gentleman of your obvious mature years should probably try to avoid seeming childish in his responses?

How do your many responses edify those to whom they are directed? How do they contribute to the growth of the KJVO people who see very little of substance but a lot of ridicule in so many of the responses they receive?

Wouldn't it be better to try to teach these nice people, our brothers and sisters in Christ, the truth rather than just heaping scorn and ridicule on them?

2 Timothy 2:2 And the things that you have heard from me among many witnesses, commit the same to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.

2Timothy 2:24-26 But the servant of the Lord must not strive, but be gentle to all, apt to teach, patient, in meekness instructing those who oppose, if perhaps God will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth, and that they awake out of the snare of the Devil, having been taken captive by him as he wills.

Would you, sir, as a favor to me, consider those verses before you post what may be seen as a mockery of others to the thread again? Thank you.

 

[rsr]

I have found the NET Bible very valuable for its translators' notes. Agree or disagree with the comments, the thousands of notes explain a good deal of the MV-KJVO debate.

 

[HankD]

skan,

What about psalm145 3?

Why didn't you chastise him and only brother Ed.

Let's be fair.

HankD

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by skanwmatos:
How do they contribute to the growth of the KJVO people who see very little of substance but a lot of ridicule in so many of the responses they receive?

He's got a point. People say that they are KJV1611 only, but they are most definitely not. The guy brings it out over and over again, and instead of addressing it, we get the kind of post that you write.

 

[skanwmatos]

Originally posted by HankD:
What about psalm145 3?

Why didn't you chastise him and only brother Ed.

Let's be fair.

I don't see where he treated the subject or the opinions of others facetiously. Could you point me to that post?

 

[skanwmatos]

Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
He's got a point. People say that they are KJV1611 only, but they are most definitely not. The guy brings it out over and over again, and instead of addressing it, we get the kind of post that you write.

I don't see a point. All I see is posts regarding "the real" KJV. What needs to be addressed? What point did he make that was intended to edify others? What portion of knowledge is he passing on? Maybe I missed it.

And by "the kind of post you write" are you referring to the scripture I quoted? Or to my desire to exhibit patience and love toward my fellow Christian? Or to my desire to edify, and live peaceably, as much as lies within me, with all men?

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by skanwmatos:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Ed Edwards:
Now if a person has the REAL King
James Version, the 1611 Edition, then
one has at least some translator
notes and a bit of honesty.

Mr. Edwards, may I point out, with all due respect to your age and experience, that a gentleman of your obvious mature years should probably try to avoid seeming childish in his responses?

How do your many responses edify those to whom they are directed? How do they contribute to the growth of the KJVO people who see very little of substance but a lot of ridicule in so many of the responses they receive?

Wouldn't it be better to try to teach these nice people, our brothers and sisters in Christ, the truth rather than just heaping scorn and ridicule on them?

2 Timothy 2:2 And the things that you have heard from me among many witnesses, commit the same to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.

2Timothy 2:24-26 But the servant of the Lord must not strive, but be gentle to all, apt to teach, patient, in meekness instructing those who oppose, if perhaps God will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth, and that they awake out of the snare of the Devil, having been taken captive by him as he wills.

Would you, sir, as a favor to me, consider those verses before you post what may be seen as a mockery of others to the thread again? Thank you. </font>[/QUOTE]Prov. 25:11,12, "Like apples of gold in settings of silver is a word spoken in right circumstances. Like an earring of gold and an ornament of fine gold is a wise reprover to a listening ear."

Prov. 9:8, "Do not reprove a scoffer, or he will hate you, Reprove a wise man and he will love you."

You can't teach someone who doesn't want to be taught.

Perhaps you should take a look at the context of 2 Timothy 2:2 before applying it this situation.

Near where I live there is a KJVO church that has become the talk of the town among non-believers. A few weeks ago I was witnessing to a young man and he told me about that church. That church has become laughing stock. It was about 30 people 25 years ago and they are still the same numbers. However they do publish things that go out all over. But locally they are laughing stock and have zero witness. They are more about condemnation than love.

 

[skanwmatos]

Originally posted by gb93433:
They are more about condemnation than love.

Yes. That is the attitude I was addressing.

 

[Taufgesinnter]

Well good, I'm glad that the NET Bible doesn't include the additions to the Word of God found in corrupted versions like the KJV. It's good that the NET is based on the most reliable manuscripts that are closest to the inspired original wording instead of the Greek Catholic basis of the AV. Actually, to be honest, we cannot know whether the wording of the Catholics' Received Text or the Catholics' Alexandrian Text is better, which is why it would be very foolish to be dogmatic about the issue. What we should remember is that except for the maybe-Johannine pericope, they agree more than 99%.

 

[robycop3]

When someone is clearly advocating a false doctrine, shame on us who KNOW it's false if we just ignore it. If calling down a false doctrine seems to express condemnation, so be it. I would much rather express it now than have Jesus ask me,"You saw that which was wrong, and ignored it. Why?"