• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.
  4. There have been some changes in the Life Stages section involving the following forums: Roaring 20s, Terrific Thirties, Fabulous Forties, and Golden Eagles. They are changed to Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, and Golden Eagles will have a slight change.
  5. CF Staff, Angels and Ambassadors; ask that you join us in praying for the world in this difficult time, asking our Holy Father to stop the spread of the virus, and for healing of all affected.
  6. We are no longer allowing posts or threads that deny the existence of Covid-19. Members have lost loved ones to this virus and are grieving. As a Christian site, we do not need to add to the pain of the loss by allowing posts that deny the existence of the virus that killed their loved one. Future post denying the Covid-19 existence, calling it a hoax, will be addressed via the warning system.

Does it matter which version of the Bible you read?

Discussion in 'Traditional Adventists-Discussion Zone' started by reddogs, Nov 13, 2019.

  1. reddogs

    reddogs Contributor Supporter

    +273
    SDA
    Married
    US-Others
    Lets compare one verse, 1 John 4:3:

    NIV - but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.

    RSV - and every spirit which does not confess Jesus is not of God. This is the spirit of antichrist, of which you heard that it was coming, and now it is in the world already.

    ASV and every spirit that confesseth not Jesus is not of God: and this is the spirit of the antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it cometh; and now it is in the world already.

    KJV - And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

    We see here in 1 John 4:3 that the NIV takes out the whole point in the text, "NIV leaves out the fact that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh--yet another swipe at the divinity of Christ." https://mundall.com/erik/NIV-KJV.htm
     
    We teamed up with Faith Counseling. Can they help you today?
  2. solid_core

    solid_core Well-Known Member

    +1,546
    Austria
    Protestant
    Single
    Yes and no.

    In many details and church doctrines, yes.

    In the basic Christian faith, no. You will get all core Christian values and doctrines from any textual version.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • List
  3. eleos1954

    eleos1954 God is Love Supporter

    +3,920
    United States
    Christian
    Single
    US-Others
    I really like using www.biblehub.com for study ... easily brings up several different versions for comparison ... the end game I to into the greek or hebrew and see how it reads there ... regarding this particular verse ... in the flesh IS how it reads.

    In verse 2 (not 3) in the NIV it does state "in the flesh" same with ASV & RSV .... so it is there ... but stated in verse 2 instead of 3.

    Regardless what bible is being used ... always a good idea to read several verses before and after as most times provides fuller context anyway.
     
  4. BobRyan

    BobRyan Junior Member

    +6,041
    United States
    SDA
    Married
    And of course JWs would toss in the NWT
     
  5. public hermit

    public hermit social troglodyte Supporter

    +7,296
    United States
    Christian
    Single
    US-Others
    The NIV is not trying to leave out the fact that Jesus Christ came in the flesh, nor is it a swipe at the divinity of Christ.

    1. All of the translations you cited, except KJV, rely on the oldest extant manuscripts available, none of which include the words "that Jesus is come in the flesh." This is just one more reason to take the KJV with a grain of salt, because it does not take into account the oldest manuscript evidence available.

    2. 1 John 1:1-4 in all the translations you cited acknowledge that Jesus came in the flesh by stating that they heard him, saw him, touched him. In other words, they sensed his infleshedness with their fleshly senses. The whole point of those opening lines is to attest to his Incarnation/Divinity. So, the added phrase in the KJV doesn't somehow give it a special status in proclaiming the Incarnation that the others don't have. The conclusion of your argument is not only forced, but fallacious.

    All that being said, Polycarp does include the phrase "come in the flesh" when he quotes this passage in his letter to the Philippians (as do other church fathers). Polycarp predates any extant manuscript evidence we have. But, before you KJVers get all excited, this doesn't say anything commendable about the superiority of the KJV. It simply means that even a blind squirrel finds an acorn every once in a blue moon. :)
     
  6. solid_core

    solid_core Well-Known Member

    +1,546
    Austria
    Protestant
    Single
    Actually, its little more complicated. Polycarp as a person predates any NT manuscript with this verse, but the oldest copy of the letter of Polycarp with this quotation does not predate the oldest new testament manuscripts.

    So the verse could be changed in this letter later, probably to accomodate to later NT manuscripts.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • List
  7. public hermit

    public hermit social troglodyte Supporter

    +7,296
    United States
    Christian
    Single
    US-Others
    Good point. That probably explains why the committees on these various translations didn't decide to keep it in based on Polycarp. Thanks for pointing that out.
     
  8. JohnAshton

    JohnAshton Well-Known Member

    +1,561
    United States
    Anglican
    Married
    Use a good Bible commentary while reading the Bible of your choice.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Useful Useful x 1
    • List
  9. Going_Nowhere

    Going_Nowhere Active Member

    257
    +385
    United States
    Christian
    Single
    • Funny Funny x 3
    • Like Like x 1
    • List
  10. yeshuaslavejeff

    yeshuaslavejeff simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua

    +10,920
    Anabaptist
    Yes, apparently.

    The internet search engine recognizes it. >
    Hoewz grait iz teh luv teh Father haz lavizhd on uz

    The search engine replied: Did you mean how great is the love the father has lavished on uz?

    And gave good results/references >

    1 JOHN 3:1 - See what great love the Father has - Bible Gateway
    [​IMG]https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1 JOHN 3:1
    1 John 3:1 New International Version (NIV). 3 See what great love the Father has lavished on us, that we should be called children of God! And that is what we are! The reason the world does not know us is that it did not know him.


    Did you mean how great is the love the father has lavished on uz?
    1 JOHN 3:1 - See what great love the Father has - Bible Gateway
    [Search domain www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1 JOHN 3:1] 1 - - Bible Gateway JOHN 3:1
    1 John 3:1 New International Version (NIV). 3 See what great love the Father has lavished on us, that we should be called children of God! And that is what we are! The reason the world does not know us is that it did not know him.
     
  11. LittleLambofJesus

    LittleLambofJesus Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git! Supporter

    +28,502
    United States
    Christian
    Single
    US-Libertarian
    That is also my a favorite site of mine.............
    I like the easy reading NIV/NKJV. but for more literal word for word and accuracy, I like YLT and Rotherham......

    For example. Rotherham is practically the only version that correctly renders the Greek in Revelation 11:2....
    "court outside of the Sanctuary, cast out outside....."
    is not a well know version and may be awkward to read because of it's literalness to the Greek......IMHO

    What Bible version/s do the SDAs like most?

    Rotherham Emphasized Bible -

    Rotherham(i) 1 And there was given unto me a reed, like unto a staff, saying—Rise, and measure the Sanctuary<2485> of God, and the altar, and them who are doing homage therein;
    2 and, the court that is outside the Sanctuary, cast<1844> thou outside, and do not measure, it, because it hath been given unto the nations, and, the holy city, shall they tread under foot, forty and two months.

    Greek New Testament - Parallel Greek New Testament by John Hurt

    Stephens 1550 Textus Receptus
    kai thn aulhn thn eswqen tou naou ekbale exw kai mh authn metrhshV oti edoqh toiV eqnesin kai thn polin thn agian pathsousin mhnaV tessarakonta duo
    ========================
    I have devoted a whole thread and study on that 1 verse for those interested:

    Reve 11:1,2 Sanctuary, Tabernacle, Altar, Court and Holy City
     
  12. eleos1954

    eleos1954 God is Love Supporter

    +3,920
    United States
    Christian
    Single
    US-Others
    One version I use sometimes and find quite interesting is the Geneva Bible the version that has the reformers notes ... that version isn't on biblehub.com wish it was ... nice to have the internet these days to do research on all kinds of things and usually pretty quickly.

    I don't know you would have to ask one.
     
    Last edited: Nov 13, 2019
  13. Hank77

    Hank77 Well-Known Member Supporter

    +13,340
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    US-Others
    1Jn 4:2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:

    Verse 4:3 is repeating what has been said in verse 4:2 "come in the flesh".

    Adam Clarke's Commentary -
    The words εν σαρκι εληλυθοτα, is come in the flesh, are wanting in AB, several others, both the Syriac, the Polyglot Arabic, Ethiopic, Coptic, Armenian, and Vulgate; in Origen, Cyril, Theodoret, Irenaeus, and others. Griesbach has left them out of the text.

    John Gill's Commentary -
    that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh: this clause is left out in the Ethiopic version, and that without hurting the sense, since it is easily supplied from the preceding verse; and the Alexandrian copy, and the Vulgate Latin version, only read "Jesus": and the latter reads the whole thus, "and every spirit that dissolves Jesus"; that separates the two natures, human and divine...

    1 John 4 Gill's Exposition
     
  14. Hank77

    Hank77 Well-Known Member Supporter

    +13,340
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    US-Others
    I do think it matters what you use as a Bible. What I mean by that is that I believe we should be using a good translation and not a paraphrased version such as 'The Message' Bible.
    I don't see a real problem with any of them you have listed above, especially not if you use the footnotes in the NIV and compare the NIV to a more accepted version such as the NAS or the KJV.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • List
  15. Mantishand

    Mantishand Active Member

    326
    +316
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    I read the KJV because they just keep changing versus. I don't know how important it is but when I see vast changes like: Isaiah 32:5-8, it concerns me.

    It talks about vile people being called liberal. Now I am not trying to anger anyone but it could be talking about "Liberal" America. Like liberals who support abortion and homosexuality etc. It could very well be talking about exactly what it sounds like. But in other bible versions it is completely different.
     
  16. Hank77

    Hank77 Well-Known Member Supporter

    +13,340
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    US-Others
    'the vile person shall no longer be called liberal'
    vile is the opposite of liberal, vile bad, liberal good

    Adam Clarke's Commentary
    The vile person shall no more be called liberal - The different epithets here employed require minute explanation.
    The vile person - נבל
    nabal, the pampered, fattened, brainless fellow, who eats to live, and lives to eat; who will scarcely part with any thing, and that which he does give he gives with an evil eye and a grudging heart.

    Liberal - נדיב nadib; the generous, openhearted, princely man, who writes on all his possessions, For myself and mankind, and lives only to get and to do good.

    Strong's
    nadib: inclined, generous, noble
    Original Word: נָדִיב
    Part of Speech: Adjective; noun masculine
    Transliteration: nadib
    Phonetic Spelling: (naw-deeb')
    Definition: inclined, generous, noble
    Strong's Hebrew: 5081. נָדִיב (nadib) -- inclined, generous, noble
     
  17. reddogs

    reddogs Contributor Supporter

    +273
    SDA
    Married
    US-Others
    It certainly and purposely is taking a swipe at the divinity of Christ, as the NIV is based on the corrupted Gnostic Alexandrian manuscripts which Hort and Westcott picked up.
    NIV based on Alexandrian Manuscripts - Preserved Word Ministries

    Here is a good explanation on the affects of Gnosticism, "...Simon Magus, after his rejection by Peter, began to fashion his own "Christian" church -- a church of which HE was head -- a church designed to completely overthrow the True Church of God. His idea was to blend together Babylonian teaching with some of the teachings of Christ -- especially to take the name of Christ -- and thus create ONE UNIVERSAL CHURCH! But a church with Babylonianism as its basis.

    Harnack, a church historian, states that Simon Magus "proclaimed a doctrine in which the Jewish faith was strangely and grotesquely mixed with BABYLONIAN myths, together with some Greek additions. The mysterious worship . . . in consequence of the widened horizon and the deepening religious feeling, finally the wild SYNCRETISM [that is, blending together of religious beliefs], whose aim WAS A UNIVERSAL RELIGION, all contributed to gain adherents for Simon" (Vol. 1, p. 244).

    Simon can be classified among the major group of so-called Christians (and Simon called himself such), called by Harnack the: "decidedly anti-Jewish groups . . . . They advanced much further in the criticism of the Old Testament and perceived the impossibility of saving it [that is, the Old Testament] for the Christian UNIVERSAL RELIGION. They rather connected this [universal] religion with the cultus-wisdom of BABYLON and SYRIA" (VoI. 1, p. 246).
    With this background, we can understand why Peter so strongly rebuked Simon for his Babylonian ideas. Peter prophesied that this was the man who was to be the "gall of bitterness, and bond of iniquity" to the True Church. Simon&#146; s attitude was corrupt in the extreme!

    The Bible shows he had been working through demons. And yet, he finally called himself a "Christian." Dr. McGiffert, speaking of Simon Magus, says: "His effort to rival and surpass Jesus very likely began after his contact with the Christians that Luke records. His religious system was apparently a SYNCRETISM of Jewish and Oriental elements" (Hasting's Dictionary of the Apostolic Church, Vol. 2, p. 497)....."

    While the church at Rome was allowing ancient religious ideas and paganism to creep into its teachings, the church in Alexandria was being corrupted by Greek philosophy and constructing doctrines influenced by Plato and the Stoics:

    It is seen in the writings of Clement of Alexandria head of the Catechetical School of Alexandria. He united Greek philosophical traditions with Christian doctrine. He used the term "gnostic" for Christians who had attained the deeper teaching of the Logos which he felt was a lesser form of God, he taught that Christ was not really flesh but spirit. He developed a Christian Platonism, of which objects in the everyday world are imperfect copies. He presented the goal of Christian life as deification, or assimilation into God.

    He arose from Alexandria's Catechetical School and was well versed in pagan literature which it seems he used to develop his doctrines. Clement is best remembered as the teacher of Origen who followed him as head of Alexandria's Catechetical School and interpreted scripture allegorically and showed himself to be a Neo-Pythagorean, and Neo-Platonist. Like Plotinus, he wrote that the soul passes through successive stages of incarnation before eventually reaching God. He imagined even demons being reunited with God. For Origen like his teacher Clement, God was the First Principle, and Christ, the Logos, was subordinate to him. He did not believe in the ressurection and taught against that the soul died along with the body, being restored to life only at the resurrection (see soul sleep).

    His works were used in the formulation of the early churches doctrines, Origen wrote about 6,000 works. A list was given by Eusebius who studied them and seems to have continued some of the false beliefs which he passed on in his writings. He followed Origen later as bishop of Caesarea and spread his ideas as seen in the further development of the Arian controversies. For instance he was involved in the dispute with Eustathius of Antioch who opposed the growing influence of Origen, including his practice of an allegorical exegesis of scripture. Eustathius perceived in Origen's theology the roots of Arianism and fought against it. He was correct facts were to show, as Eusebius was intent upon emphasizing the difference of the persona of the Trinity and maintaining the subordination of the Son (Logos, or Word) to God. The Son (Jesus), as Arianism asserted, is a creature of God. This Logos, as a derivative creature and not truly God as the Father is truly God, could therefore change (Eusebius, with most early theologians, assumed God was immutable), and he assumed a human body without altering the immutable divine Father. The relation of the Holy Spirit within the Trinity Eusebius explained similarly to that of the Son to the Father. No point of this doctrine is original with Eusebius, all is traceable to his teacher Origen.

    So we see where the twisting of the nature Christ begins, and the sources that it came from. It was to confuse and mislead many which we see even to this day......
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • List
  18. reddogs

    reddogs Contributor Supporter

    +273
    SDA
    Married
    US-Others
    So lets look close as what Simon Magus formed, as the Gnostics was basically a mixture of Greek Philopsophy and Ancient Mystery religion, Zoroastrianism which was from Simon's magi background, and came to be known as Gnosticism. This Gnostic line of thought had certain characteristics which had serious moral and ethical consequences. Its basic belief was that matter was essentially evil and spirit alone was good. If as they thought, matter is evil, the body is evil; and the body must be despised and held down and we see where rigid asceticism came from. So following this line, if the body is evil, it does not matter what a man does with it. Therefore, man could sate his appetites and man could use his body in the most licentious way and it makes no difference. A common characteristic was the teaching that the realization of gnosis or the esoteric or intuitive knowledge, is the way to salvation of the soul from the material world. They mixed truth with falsehoods and Jesus is identified by some Gnostic sects as an embodiment of the supreme being who became incarnate to bring gnosis to the earth and the Gnostic sects develop the belief that Jesus was merely a human who attained divinity through gnosis and taught his disciples to do the same.

    Gnosticism tried to blend the new religion but ultimately was against traditional Christian beliefs and attempted to combine Paganism with Christianity. Some Gnostic groups had beliefs that often contradicted the beliefs of other Gnostic groups. The movement spread in areas controlled by the Roman Empire and especially strong in Egypt, but the one thing that they all had in common was that all of these groups departed from the truth, and the Gnostic mixed their beliefs into the manuscripts they made of the scriptures, putting changes of their particular beliefs or taking out what disagreed with it.

    The movement spread in areas controlled by the Roman Empire and especially in Rome and Egypt, and here is where it gets interesting. From Egypt we get some of their ideas and beliefs that were put into corrupted manuscripts and years later two of these manuscripts appeared. These were called Vaticanus & Sinaiticus since they were somehow 'found' in the Vatican Library & a monastery in the Sinai respectively. Neither was in the original Greek language, but in a Coptic translation, an early Egyptian language. Coptic placed the origin of these two texts in the region of Alexandria, Egypt the center of the gnosticism heresy. Hence they became known collectively as the Alexandrian Codices.

    And now it becomes even more interesting, as Anglicans Westcott & Hort undertook the translation of these Coptic copies back into their original Greek language and the differences began to suddenly appear. Gone was the resurrection story in the book of Mark (the last twelve verses of the KJV). Gone was Acts 8:37 where the Ethiopian eunuch confesses Jesus as the Son of God along with many other passages. All the modern translations which were written during this time frame are based on the Westcott & Hort Coptic Greek text including the American Standard Version (ASV), the New International Version (NIV), the New World Translation (NWT) & many more picked up from the Gnostic corrupted manuscripts.... and now we know the rest of the story as they say...
     
    Last edited: Nov 16, 2019
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • List
  19. solid_core

    solid_core Well-Known Member

    +1,546
    Austria
    Protestant
    Single
    So you choose a Bible translation according to what fits your political views?
     
  20. solid_core

    solid_core Well-Known Member

    +1,546
    Austria
    Protestant
    Single
    This is just SDA (or KJV-Only, frequently the same thing) fantasy.

    Learn something about real textual criticism, Nestle Aland and critica major of Institut für neutestamentliche Textforschung:

    Editio Critica Maior - Wikipedia

    There are 5 main problems and heresies SDA came with and spread them to other US churches, after they split from Jehovists:
    1) Jesus is not so much God.
    2) Literal creationism
    3) Sabbath and Law
    4) Extrabiblical prophets (E.G.White)
    5) KJV Only
     
    Last edited: Nov 16, 2019
Loading...