Who Changed Genesis?

[Bible Highlighter]

Right... it's still translated from the TR

Regardless what edition it is, it's still translated from the same base text. If it's good, it's base text is better.

There are two vines.

The vine that the King James comes from, and a vine that the Modern Translations come from. While they both agree on many things (and an lead a person to faith in Jesus Christ), they are not exactly the same, either. I believe only one of these vines will help the believer to truly be perfected in their Sanctification by God. Only the pure Word can do that. For faith comes by hearing, and hearing the Word of God. Not all words say the same exact thing (Although they are close). If one is more liberal with God's Word (or His instructions), then it does not matter what I say. They will just regard the next Modern Translation that comes out that is cool and fancy. They will seek the original languages and attempt a meaning that is more suitable to their lifestyle and way, instead of just allowing the text to change them instead.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I didn't say "good" I said devote. Paul was a believing Jew, the Masoretes were not.

He was not a devoted Catholic (or a good Catholic) because he did thing that were against the Catholic faith at that time.

 

[DamianWarS]

He was not a devoted Catholic (or a good Catholic) because he did thing that were against the Catholic faith at that time.

It sounds like you're trying to suggest the TR is more credible because Erasmus was a bad Catholic

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Do you have examples of how the Greek text sought to align itself more with occult practices? Anyone can claim the devil is in it (I could claim that with the KJV) but the claim itself is meaningless without the proof.

You can get this book used for about 15 bucks used or you can request it at your local library to borrow for free.

https://www.amazon.com/New-Age-Bible-Versions-Documentation/dp/0963584502

It is probably one of the most exhaustive books on the subject.

Also, watch this video here:

Side Note:

Now, I am not as radical as them and saying we should never use a Modern Translation, but I believe we do need to have a final word of authority that is in our own language that we can understand. For I can read the King James, and Shakespeare and I cannot do the same with Hebrew and Greek texts without the aid of Lexicons or what other men say.

 

[DamianWarS]

There are two vines.

The vine that the King James comes from, and a vine that the Modern Translations come from. While they both agree on many things (and an lead a person to faith in Jesus Christ), they are not exactly the same, either. I believe only one of these vines will help the believer to truly be perfected in their Sanctification by God. Only the pure Word can do that. For faith comes by hearing, and hearing the Word of God. Not all words say the same exact thing (Although they are close). If one is more liberal with God's Word (or His instructions), then it does not matter what I say. They will just regard the next Modern Translation that comes out that is cool and fancy. They will seek the original languages and attempt a meaning that is more suitable to their lifestyle and way, instead of just allowing the text to change them instead.

Right.... And it's still translated from the TR. I'm not sure what vines have to do with it.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

It sounds like you're trying to suggest the TR is more credible because Erasmus was a bad Catholic

Erasmus is used a common criticism against the KJV. Erasmus had shifted closer to that of the Ana-baptists than that of Rome.

Check out this full article here:
Erasmus, King James, and His Translators (1/3)

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Right.... And it's still translated from the TR. I'm not sure what vines have to do with it.

Vine is just another way of saying "one line of manuscripts."

Vine #1. - The line of manuscripts of the "Textus Receptus."
(Origin of KJV).

Vine #2. - Line of manuscripts of
"the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus."
(Origin of Most Modern Translations).​

There is a watered down (slightly corrupted) vine;
And a pure vine.

 

[DamianWarS]

You can get this book used for about 15 bucks or you can request it at your local library to borrow.

https://www.amazon.com/New-Age-Bible-Versions-Documentation/dp/0963584502

Also, watch this video here:

These are not proof, it's just people who share your bias. There is nothing credible with these sources, we all can produce people and books to agree with any number of positions, but doing so doesn't make them true.

 

[DamianWarS]

Vine is just another way of saying "one line of manuscripts."

Vine #1. - The line of manuscripts of the "Textus Receptus."
(Origin of KJV).

Vine #2. - Line of manuscripts of
"the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus."
(Origin of Most Modern Translations).​

There is a watered down (slightly corrupted) vine;
And a pure vine.

I understood the vine reference, but you fail to show why one is pure and the other not. So far it's just stuff you're saying... I can say stuff too.

 

[DamianWarS]

Erasmus is used a common criticism against the KJV. Erasmus had shifted closer to that of the Ana-baptists than that of Rome.

Check out this full article here:
Erasmus, King James, and His Translators (1/3)

Are you able to quote something other than from KJV onliest sites? There are credibility issues when you can only produce sources from a single niche group. I have no issues with Erasmus being the father of the first Greek printed text. He was Catholic... well so was everyone in the turn of the 15th century. Without the TR I'm not even sure if the reformation would have taken place as many early translations were based off of it and it help fuel the reformers cause as now they have a bible in their own tongue. My issue is not with Erasmus or the TR it's your inconsistent argument claiming the KJV is some how better than everything it is built on.

 

[HARK!]

These are not proof, it's just people who share your bias. There is nothing credible with these sources, we all can produce people and books to agree with any number of positions, but doing so doesn't make them true.

I tend to go with Textual Criticism. Science and logic, over opinion, for the win!

 

[DamianWarS]

I tend to go with Textual Criticism. Science and logic, over opinion, for the win!

Yes, I agree

 

[FredVB]

There are two vines.

The vine that the King James comes from, and a vine that the Modern Translations come from. While they both agree on many things (and an lead a person to faith in Jesus Christ), they are not exactly the same, either. I believe only one of these vines will help the believer to truly be perfected in their Sanctification by God. Only the pure Word can do that. For faith comes by hearing, and hearing the Word of God. Not all words say the same exact thing (Although they are close). If one is more liberal with God's Word (or His instructions), then it does not matter what I say. They will just regard the next Modern Translation that comes out that is cool and fancy. They will seek the original languages and attempt a meaning that is more suitable to their lifestyle and way, instead of just allowing the text to change them instead.

There are no signs showing believers are divided with their gospel from this.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

There are no signs showing believers are divided with their gospel from this.

Believers are to be agreed not only on the gospel, but many other things within the faith. The Modern Translations change God's commands, change doctrine, make Jesus appear to sin, place the devil's name for our Lord and other things, etc. The King James (whether you believe it to be the pure Word of God or not) does not have these same problems as Modern Translations. It's not that I do not use Modern Translations, it is just that they are not my final Word of authority.

 

[Daniel Martinovich]

Vine is just another way of saying "one line of manuscripts."

Vine #1. - The line of manuscripts of the "Textus Receptus."
(Origin of KJV).

Vine #2. - Line of manuscripts of
"the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus."
(Origin of Most Modern Translations).​

There is a watered down (slightly corrupted) vine;
And a pure vine.

First off. There are no translations based off the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus. What there are is notes in the margins of a lot of new translations based on those two obviously corrupt manuscripts. But the Greek texts most of the modern translations are based on are “master copy” texts that are almost identical to the textus receptus. I have used both extensively and I only remember running across one minor difference. Now translations are another story altogether. Lots of horrible translations out there. If it were not for easy access to the Greek and Hebrew I would even bother looking at any of those translations except the KJV and one or two others.

But you need to get out there and educate yourself on this subject. There are thousands of manuscripts out there and we get our master copies from them. Not from those two corrupt manuscripts. The only reason they are the oldest known is because they are so obviously corrupt. Missing whole chapters and such. That copyist were not using them so they didn’t get all worn out from use.

By the way. Ever notice how the KJV and almost all other translations that use the Masoretic Hebrew text are missing or have altered a half dozen verses of messianic prophecies quoted in the NT? Did you know the oldest Masoretic text we had was around 900ad? Did you know the Greek Septuagint that pre dates the Masoretic text by 3 centuries has all those NT messianic versus in its Greek OT? Wonder why that is?

I’ll tell you. The Greek Septuagint was the scripture used throughout the whole Greek world for hundreds of years. Greek was mandatory under the Greek kings.
The Masoretic text was written at the end of the first century by some very anti christ rabbis who blamed Jesus for the destruction of Jerusalem. They purposely altered those messianic verses because they were being used so effectively to win Jews to Christ. Christian writers of the day, who did not have access to Hebrew Scriptures complained that this small group of rabbis were altering the OT. But until the Dead Sea scrolls were dug up there was no Hebrew texts to compare to. Only the Greek Septuagint, the NT quotes of the verses in question and the word of those early Christian writers. Not only did they alter those verses. They lopped off about 1500 years out of the ages and genealogies of the patriarchs which has caused great confusion in the study of ancient history ever since.

My question to you is. If the textus receptionist is in and of itself is the scripture. How can it contain these errors?

 

[FredVB]

There are no signs showing believers are divided with their gospel from this.

Believers are to be agreed not only on the gospel, but many other things within the faith. The Modern Translations change God's commands, change doctrine, make Jesus appear to sin, place the devil's name for our Lord and other things, etc. The King James (whether you believe it to be the pure Word of God or not) does not have these same problems as Modern Translations. It's not that I do not use Modern Translations, it is just that they are not my final Word of authority.

There are many things from the Bible for believers to agree to, besides the gospel message, some more critical than others. For instance, you might say you are still permitted to eat meat, no matter what, you are not losing your salvation from that. But salvation depends on us knowing the gospel, and we need to repent from sin, those things are important. I see the commandments are not shown as different in different translations... unless you mean Catholic bibles show two commandments as being one commandment, and divide another one into two commandments. In these different translations I do not see doctrines changed. I do see some differences, still in minor points, nothing critical to the gospel, commandments, or doctrines, but enough to have me more comfortable with certain translations and not as comfortable with certain other ones. Jesus never sinned, I don't know any translations showing he did do so, and I can only guess that you mean calling him the bright morning star is the same as giving him the name of the devil, and I know of no believers thinking Jesus is the same as the devil.

 

[Lulav]

You can get this book used for about 15 bucks used or you can request it at your local library to borrow for free.

New Age Bible Versions: An Exhaustive Documentation of the Message, Men & Manuscripts Moving Mankind to the Antichrist's One World Religion: G. A. Riplinger: 9780963584502: Amazon.com: Books

It is probably one of the most exhaustive books on the subject.

It was hard to read the cover and back so for those interested, I've transcribed it.

Front:

New Age Bible Versions

An Exhaustive Documentation Exposing the Message, Men and Manuscripts moving mankind to
the Antichrist’s One world Religion

The New Case Against the​

NIV, NASB, NKJV, SV, HCSB,NRSV, NAB, NET, CEV,GNB, CEB,​

LIVING, THE MESSAGE, NEW JERUSALEM AND NEW CENTURY​

The latest research supporting the Authorized King James Version


Back :

This book is the result of an exhaustive six-year collation of new bible versions, their underlying Greek manuscript, editions, and editors. It objectively and methodically documents the hidden alliance between new version and the New Age Movement’s One World Religion.

-They worshiped the Dragon” Revelation 13:4​

---------The Message---------​

The emerging ‘new’ Christianity __ with its substitution of riches for righteousness, a crown for a cross, and an imitation for a new creation ___ is shown to be a direct result of the wording in the new versions.

Documented are the thousands of words, verses, and doctrines by which new versions will prepare the apostate churches of these last days to accept the religion of the Antichrist ____ even his mark, image, and Lucifer worship.

“ Beware of the Scribes” --- Luke 20:46​

​

---------The Manuscripts----------​

The Greek manuscripts, critical editions, lexicons and dictionaries behind the new versions are examined, revealing their occult origin, contents and yet unreleased material--- a blueprint for the Antichrist’s One World Religion and government.

Presented also is the latest research proving the Authorized King James Version represents not only Christianity’s earliest and most widely used Greek text, but is the easiest version to read according to computer analysis based formulas from the Flesch-Kincaid research firm.

----------The Men---------​

​

The page opens a door exposing new version editors – in agreement with Luciferians, occultists, and New Age philosophy ---in mental institutions, séance parlors, prison cells, and court rooms for heresy trials – and most shocking of all --- denying that salvation is through faith in Jesus Christ. Five have lost their ability to speak.

 

[Daniel Martinovich]

It was hard to read the cover and back so for those interested, I've transcribed it.

Front:

New Age Bible Versions

An Exhaustive Documentation Exposing the Message, Men and Manuscripts moving mankind to
the Antichrist’s One world Religion

The New Case Against the​

NIV, NASB, NKJV, SV, HCSB,NRSV, NAB, NET, CEV,GNB, CEB,​

LIVING, THE MESSAGE, NEW JERUSALEM AND NEW CENTURY​

The latest research supporting the Authorized King James Version


Back :

This book is the result of an exhaustive six-year collation of new bible versions, their underlying Greek manuscript, editions, and editors. It objectively and methodically documents the hidden alliance between new version and the New Age Movement’s One World Religion.

-They worshiped the Dragon” Revelation 13:4​

---------The Message---------​

The emerging ‘new’ Christianity __ with its substitution of riches for righteousness, a crown for a cross, and an imitation for a new creation ___ is shown to be a direct result of the wording in the new versions.

Documented are the thousands of words, verses, and doctrines by which new versions will prepare the apostate churches of these last days to accept the religion of the Antichrist ____ even his mark, image, and Lucifer worship.

“ Beware of the Scribes” --- Luke 20:46​

​

---------The Manuscripts----------​

The Greek manuscripts, critical editions, lexicons and dictionaries behind the new versions are examined, revealing their occult origin, contents and yet unreleased material--- a blueprint for the Antichrist’s One World Religion and government.

Presented also is the latest research proving the Authorized King James Version represents not only Christianity’s earliest and most widely used Greek text, but is the easiest version to read according to computer analysis based formulas from the Flesch-Kincaid research firm.

----------The Men---------​

​

The page opens a door exposing new version editors – in agreement with Luciferians, occultists, and New Age philosophy ---in mental institutions, séance parlors, prison cells, and court rooms for heresy trials – and most shocking of all --- denying that salvation is through faith in Jesus Christ. Five have lost their ability to speak.

I read a Greek recieved text interlinear for my first 15 years as a Christian. So zelous about it I actually carried it around with me as my main reader. There were no Hebrew interlinears st the time but I had a strongs and a Masoertic text that the KJV is from. Once sites like Biblehub came out with both Greek and Hebrew interlinears I just use them. That being said. I have only found one sentance in the Greek missing a word in the Nestle/Aland master copy verses the received text master copy. Nothing to concern anyone. Not saying there are not other words here and there but I think what you sre communicating is totally bogus. The master copies all our Translations come from are almost identical. Now the translations themselves are s different story. Many of them just stink to high heaven and ALL of them are translated with bias.

But i’ll ask you this Mr. KJV only. What do you do with the Masoretic text almost all our Bibles use. Oldest known copy 900 AD where some very anti-christ rabbis altered about a half dozen verses of prophecy about Jesus because they were being used very effectively to win Jews to Christ and they lopped 1500 years out of the creation date giving use the 6000 year date from creation when it is 7500? We actually know who did this when they did this. The Septuigent which proceeds the Masoretic text by 400 years has it right.

 

[Lulav]

Not saying there are not other words here and there but I think what you're communicating is totally bogus.

Me?

But i’ll ask you this Mr. KJV only.

I only transcribed the book front and back for those who wanted to know what it's about. I personally like to compare many texts and also look into the original languages as well.

Thing is the evil one has been disrupting GOD's word since about day 1 (Genesis 3)

 

[JSRG]

Given that "New Age Bible Versions" by Gail Riplinger got brought up, I might as well link to this critique of it:

Why Respond to Gail Riplinger? | Bible.org

Over the past few months I have been amazed at what has transpired with reference to Mrs. Gail Riplinger and her 1993 book, New Age Bible Versions. Ever since I “debated” Mrs. Riplinger in November of 1993 on two, one-half-hour long radio programs, I have been inundated with requests from...

bible.org