Who Changed Genesis?

[Bible Highlighter]

Of course except for Westcott and Hort.

So you don't believe the historical account that they were occultists?
While man made history is not my final word of authority or an addition to my faith because I believe history can be re-written, it is logical to conclude that the report on what they said about themselves (that is condemning) is true because it lines up with their NT Greek manuscript that is more watered down to favoring their heretical beliefs.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

The same place it was in 1610

Well, there are no original manuscripts of the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek anymore. There are only copies. Do you believe these copies are the perfect Word of God? Or do you think they have mistakes in them, too?

 

[Bible Highlighter]

You must study it more.

1. First versions of Nestlé Aland were based on three other editions, Westcot Hort included:
"In 1898 Eberhard Nestle published the first edition of his Novum Testamentum Graece...
Nestle took the three leading scholarly editions of the Greek New Testament at that time by Tischendorf, Westcott/Hort and Weymouth as a basis. (After 1901 he replaced the latter with Bernhard Weiß’s 1894/1900 edition.) Where their textual decisions differed from each other Nestle chose for his own text the variant which was preferred by two of the editions included, while the variant of the third was put into the apparatus."

2. In the Nestlé Aland 25, they added comparing manuscripts and Church fathers:
"...started working for the edition by checking the apparatus entries against Greek manuscripts and editions of the Church Fathers. This phase came to a close in 1963 when the 25th edition of the Novum Testamentum Graece appeared; later printings of this edition already carried the brand name “Nestle-Aland” on their covers."

3. Since Nestlé Aland 26, they have begun their own textual research and the text was no more based on other critical editions:
"The 26th edition, which appeared in 1979, featured a fundamentally new approach. Until then the guiding principle had been to adopt the text supported by a majority of the critical editions referred to. Now the text was established on the basis of source material that had been assembled and evaluated in the intervening period. It included early papyri and other manuscript discoveries, so that the 26th edition represented the situation of textual criticism in the 20th century."

4. Currently, they are doing the most complete work that has never done before - Editio Critica Maior - a complete examination of all known sources - manuscripts, papyri, quotes of fathers, commentaries of fathers and other:
"the text was established on the basis of all the relevant material from manuscripts and other sources..."

Nestle Aland Novum Testamentum Graece :: History

If you want to know real, complex, colorful facts about the world, you must not read just the KJVO manipulative, cherry-picking sources.

To say that they completely discarded their work is making a huge leap of assumption by your quote of their own words. Nowhere does the text you quote suggest that they completely abandoned Westcott and Hort's Greek NT entirely. They merely added some extra sources in addition to Westcott and Hort's Greek NT. Besides, even if what you say is true, Eberhard Nestle is not somebody I would look up to.

Eberhard Nestle rejected the infallibility of the Bible, and he held to the view that it was no more than a normal piece of literature.

If that is the wellspring you want to drink from, go right ahead and partake of it. I will trust my King James Bible.

 

[solid_core]

To say that they completely discarded their work is making a huge leap of assumption by your quote of their own words. Nowhere does the text you quote suggest that they completely abandoned Westcott and Hort's Greek NT entirely. They merely added some extra sources in addition to Westcott and Hort's Greek NT. Besides, even if what you say is true, Eberhard Nestle is not somebody I would look up to.

Eberhard Nestle (1851-1913)

Nestle, of the popular Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament ... , rejected the infallibility of the Bible, and believed it was no more than a normal piece of literature. He claimed that authors of the New Testament never expected their writings to be read by others let alone be taken as the authoritative word of God.​

If that is the wellspring you want to drink from, go right ahead and partake of it. I will trust my King James Bible.

Source:
DoRightChristians

All your sources are laughable. You must begin to read credible sources.

Its sad that you do not realize that a blog with title "The Heretics Behind Modern Bible Versions Supported By James White" will be hardly objective, balanced and credible.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

All your sources are laughable. You must begin to read credible sources.

Its sad that you do not realize that a blog with title "The Heretics Behind Modern Bible Versions Supported By James White" will be hardly objective, balanced and credible.

​

In 1952, a German named "Kurt Aland" would join the Nestle team, he would produce new editions of the Nestle's Greek Text, his final being the 25th edition. He would eventually be joined by his wife Barbara. He denied the verbal inspiration of the Bible and wanted to see all denominations united into one “body” by the acceptance of a new ecumenical canon of Scripture which would take into account the Catholic apocryphal books (The Problem of the New Testament Canon, pp. 6,7,30-33).

You can even see Kurt Aland with the pope in certain pictures.
If you are Catholic, then by all means, trust these two men, and their Greek NT.​

 

[Bible Highlighter]

All your sources are laughable. You must begin to read credible sources.

Its sad that you do not realize that a blog with title "The Heretics Behind Modern Bible Versions Supported By James White" will be hardly objective, balanced and credible.

Also, it is more than just history. History can sometimes be unreliable. I believe sometimes history can be written by the victors. The true test is Observable Science. What can we see and test right now. I can test and see that the KJV is more superior in regards to doctrine or teaching. The Modern Translations clearly water down:

• The Trinity,
• The deity of Christ,
• The Incarnation,
• The Blood Atonement,
• Holy Living,
• Salvation.

Some bibles you would not to fast so as to cast out certain demons. But that truth is there in the KJV.

The devil places his name for Christ and other things. Again, this is not right. But you are free to believe whatever you wish.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

All your sources are laughable. You must begin to read credible sources.

Its sad that you do not realize that a blog with title "The Heretics Behind Modern Bible Versions Supported By James White" will be hardly objective, balanced and credible.

I removed the source so as not to violate forum rules.

 

[solid_core]

You can even see Kurt Aland with the pope in certain pictures.​

Terrible. Almost as bad as the catholic priest Erasmus and anglicans who made your NT.​

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Terrible. Almost as bad as the catholic priest Erasmus and anglicans who made your NT.​

Erasmus was not really a good Catholic. He saved a man from the inquisition and spoke out against the Catholic church on many things.

Chick.com: Was Erasmus a "good" Roman Catholic?

 

[Bible Highlighter]

@solid_core

Stop and think for a second. If you were stranded on an island and you knew nothing about Christianity, if you wanted to know about the Trinity by the Bible itself, your best chance of knowing that truth is with a King James Bible that includes 1 John 5:7.

If a fellow person you know is being tormented by demons, and you prayed and nothing is happening, and you did not know about fasting because you only read those particular select Modern Translations that does not include fasting to cast out certain demons, then by all means, this person you know would simply suffer because you did not have a King James Bible.

But if you want a butterknife instead of a sword, then by all means, the choice is yours, my friend.

 

[solid_core]

Erasmus was not really a good Catholic. He saved a man from the inquisition and spoke out against the Catholic church on many things.

He was a good Catholic. He devoted his Greek edition to pope himself.

Also, he did not care about the Greek too much, he used it only to prove that his translation of Latin was superior to others.

Whatever you want to do with these cards, you are still loosing if you want to talk about people around it.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

He was a good Catholic. He devoted his Greek edition to pope himself.

Also, he did not care about the Greek too much, he used it only to prove that his translation of Latin was superior to others.

Whatever you want to do with these cards, you are still loosing if you want to talk about people around it.

Read the article. You may not agree with the author or everything he says, but he does make some good points (that you should not be able to ignore).

 

[solid_core]

@solid_core

Stop and think for a second. If you were stranded on an island and you knew nothing about Christianity, if you wanted to know about the Trinity by the Bible itself, your best chance of knowing that truth is with a King James Bible that includes 1 John 5:7.

If a fellow person you know is being tormented by demons, and you prayed and nothing is happening, and you did not know about fasting because you only read those particular select Modern Translations that does not include fasting to cast out certain demons, then by all means, this person you know would simply suffer because you did not have a King James Bible.

But if you want a butterknife instead of a sword, then by all means, the choice is yours, my friend.

Thats invalid argument. We do not judge Bibles by "which fits our doctrine best", but "which is closest to the original text". Thats the point of critical editions.

 

[solid_core]

Read the article. You may not agree with the author or everything he says, but he does make some good points (that you should not be able to ignore).

I will read any credible and balanced source you will provide. This one is not of such kind.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Thats invalid argument. We do not judge Bibles by "which fits our doctrine best", but "which is closest to the original text".

In order to post on this section of the forums, you have to believe in the Trinity. So I am assuming you are in favor that the Trinity is true? Right?

 

[solid_core]

In order to post on this section of the forums, you have to believe in the Trinity. So I am assuming you are in favor that the Trinity is true? Right?

Right. But this kind of argumentation will get you nowhere.

Again, the point of textual criticism is to get the text as close to original as possible.
And if some verses were added later, even though they can be correct in teaching, they are not original and therefore should be in a commentary, not in the main text.

If you want to have clear Bible with every doctrine comfortably expressed, you can, but its kind of ceremonial Bible, not critical edition.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I will read any credible and balanced source you will provide. This one is not of such kind.

Plus, Erasmus wrote his work before the King James Bible.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Right. But this kind of argumentation will get you nowhere.

Again, the point of textual criticism is to get the text as close to original as possible.
And if some verses were added later, even though they can be correct in teaching, they are not original and therefore should be in a commentary, not in the main text.

If you want to have clear Bible with every doctrine comfortably expressed, you can, but its kind of ceremonial Bible, not critical edition.

Do you believe in the Trinity? Yes, or no?

 

[solid_core]

Plus, Erasmus wrote his work before the King James Bible.

Of course he did. Not sure what your point is.

 

[solid_core]

Do you believe in the Trinity? Yes, or no?

I already said I do.