• 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.
  7. There has been an addition to the announcement regarding unacceptable nick names. The phrase "Let's go Brandon" actually stands for a profanity and will be seen as a violation of the profanity rule in the future.

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

    +283
    SDA
    Married
    US-Others
    They try to hide it, but if it has the same changes, deletions, obfuscation, especially when it comes to the power and glory and divinity of Christ, the lineage is clearly from Hort and Wescott and can be traced to the same corrupted Alexandrian text..
     
  2. solid_core

    solid_core Well-Known Member

    +1,552
    Austria
    Protestant
    Single
    Who are "they"? And what are they trying to hide?

    Also, what exactly is the supposed corruption in the Alexandrian text? That it differs from medieval edition does not mean its corrupted. The medieval edition is much more probably corrupted, because its 1500 years younger.
     
  3. reddogs

    reddogs Contributor Supporter

    +283
    SDA
    Married
    US-Others
    I guess the verses were missing............:0)
     
  4. solid_core

    solid_core Well-Known Member

    +1,552
    Austria
    Protestant
    Single
    The simple information that something is missing compared to KJV does not mean its wrong.

    KJV is not a perfect standard for all times.
     
  5. reddogs

    reddogs Contributor Supporter

    +283
    SDA
    Married
    US-Others
    Hmm...I think everyone can see the difference...
     
    Last edited: Nov 21, 2019
  6. reddogs

    reddogs Contributor Supporter

    +283
    SDA
    Married
    US-Others
    I came across a few verses that have been taken out or partially deleted in new versions which are interesting...

    Matthew 18:11 New Versions take out "For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost."

    Luke 9:56 New Versions take out "For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them."

    Acts 8:37 New Versions take out "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."

    I John 5:7-8 New Versions take out "in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth,"

    Can anyone guess why they took the verses out as these are just a few, as there seems to be a pattern..
     
    Last edited: Dec 20, 2019
  7. reddogs

    reddogs Contributor Supporter

    +283
    SDA
    Married
    US-Others
    Here is a good explanation on Hort and Westcott I came across:

    "Westcott, an Anglican Bishop and professor at Cambridge University,and Hort – also an ordained Anglican priest and professor at Cambridge
    – came to participate on the 1881 Revision Committee of the King James Bible under the guise of being Protestant scholars. Actually, they were very Roman Catholic in doctrine, belief, and practice. Both conservative and liberal branches of Christendom hold Westcott and Hort in high esteem as if God had greatly used these men to reestablish and restore the text of the Bible. However, it is most difficult to believe that God would use two men to perform such a task who did not believe that the Bible was the verbal Word of God.

    Westcott and Hort maintained that they had raised New Testament textual criticism to the level of an exact science. Thus when they
    concluded that the Traditional Text was late and a composite reading resulting from combining older text-types, they affirmed that this should be regarded as the true explanation with the same degree of reliance as one would esteem a Newtonian theorem.1 Indeed, they asserted that their work had been so scientifically and carefully executed that there could never be more than one change per thousand words.2 Nevertheless, today most liberal (or lost) modern scholars say that they no longer agree completely with the Westcott-Hort theory. Kurt Aland, a foremost leader of the modern school, is representative when he admits to this in saying:3

    "We still live in the world of Westcott and Hort with our
    conception of different recensions and text-types although this
    conception has lost its raison d' être, or, it needs at least to be
    newly and convincingly demonstrated. For the increase of the
    documentary evidence and the entirely new areas of research
    which were opened to us on the discovery of the papyri, mean the
    end of Westcott and Hort's conception."

    Still, these same liberals always begin their own investigations with the acceptance of most of the basic W-H tenants. Sadly, most conservative scholars have accepted the W-H theory of textual history – largely because most Christian scholars fear scholastic and intellectual ridicule...." http://www.standardbearers.net/uplo...Is_The_Bible_Dr_Floyd_Nolen_Jones_PhD_ThD.pdf

    And more on the Alexandrian manucripts:
    "Bible scholarship of the past 150 years has placed much attention on a very small number of manuscripts. While there are over 5000 known New Testament manuscripts, attention has been placed on less than ten. Of these, Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus have been exalted as the “oldest and best” manuscripts. The oldest claim has been disproved elsewhere. This document will focus on the nature of these two favored manuscripts. Sinaiticus has been recently made available to all on the internet by the Codex Sinaiticus Project, with the mainstream media and general Christians fawning over this “world’s oldest Bible.” This manuscript, in conjunction with Codex Vaticanus, form the basis for most modern Bible translations. However, these two manuscripts differ substantially from the text of the bulk of the manuscripts. Thus, the public needs to know the truth about these manuscripts.

    Contrary to what has been taught in most seminaries, these two manuscripts are worthless, and hopelessly corrupt. Dean John Burgon, a highly respected Bible scholar of the mid to late 1800’s, wrote of these manuscripts, “The impurity of the Texts exhibited by Codices B and Aleph [Vaticanus and Sinaiticus] is not a matter of opinion but a matter of fact.”1 These documents are both of dubious origin. It has been speculated by some scholars that one or both were produced by Eusebius of Caesarea on orders of Emperor Constantine2. If this is true, then these manuscripts are linked to Eusibus’s teacher Origen of Alexandria, both known for interpreting Scripture allegorically as opposed to literally. Scholars have designated these manuscripts as Alexandrian, linking them with Alexandria, Egypt, the region responsible for early heresies such as Gnosticism and Arianism. Both are dated in the mid to late fourth century.

    Vaticanus is the sole property of the Vatican; it has been a part of the Vatican library since at least 1475. It’s history previous is unknown. It was written by three scribes, and has been corrected by at least two more3. Vaticanus adds to the Old Testament the apocryphal books of Baruch, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Judith, Tobit, and the Epistle of Jeremiah. Dean Burgon describes the poor workmanship of Vaticanus:

    Codex B [Vaticanus] comes to us without a history: without recommendation of any kind, except that of its antiquity. It bears traces of careless transcription in every page. The mistakes which the original transcriber made are of perpetual recurrence.4

    The New Westminster Dictionary of the Bible concurs, “It should be noted, however, that there is no prominent Biblical MS. in which there occur such gross cases of misspelling, faulty grammar, and omission, as in B [Vaticanus].”5 Vaticanus omits Mark 16:9-20, yet there is a significant blank space here for these verses.6 Sinaiticus also lacks these verses, but has a blank space for them.7 These two manuscripts are the only Greek manuscripts that omit these verses!

    The Sinaiticus was discovered by Constantine Tischendorf in the Greek Orthodox Monastery of St. Catherine, on the Sinai peninsula. Monasteries are known for exceptional libraries, and scholars would often visit to conduct research. St. Catherine’s is no exception. From the monastery’s website:

    When Egeria visited the Sinai around the year 380, she wrote approvingly of the way the monks read to her the scriptural accounts concerning the various events that had taken place there. Thus we can speak of manuscripts at Sinai in the fourth century. It is written of Saint John Climacus that, while living as a hermit, he spent much time in prayer and in the copying of books. This is evidence of manuscript production at Sinai in the sixth century. The library at the Holy Monastery of Sinai is thus the inheritor of texts and of traditions that date to the earliest years of a monastic presence in the Sinai. In earlier times, manuscripts were kept in three different places: in the north wall of the monastery, in the vicinity of the church, and in a central location where the texts were accessible.8

    This monastery has a library full of old manuscripts. One would then assume that Tischendorf found the prized Sinaiticus one a library shelf, hidden among other manuscripts. Well, this is not exactly the case. He found it in a trash can, waiting to be burnt!"...The Unreliablitity of the Alexandrian Manuscripts - Preserved Word Ministries
     
  8. reddogs

    reddogs Contributor Supporter

    +283
    SDA
    Married
    US-Others
    And on the Gnosticism in these versions from the Dean Burgon site:
    "Gnosticism, in all of its varieties, was the most influential heresy faced by the early Church. Not only did the Gnostic corrupt many readings found in the New Testament, but offered their own writings as inspired scriptures, such as the The Gospel of Thomas, The Gospel of Peter, The Gospel of Philip, The Gospel of Judas, The Gospel of the Ebionites, The Gospel of The Twelve, The Gospel According To The Hebrews (also called The Gospel According To Matthew, not to be confused with the real Gospel of Matthew), The Gospel According to the Egyptians, The Gospel of Mary (Magdalene), The Acts of Andrew, The Acts of Peter, The Acts of John, etc. Gnosticism had a variety of forms and sects, which broadened its base and growth. Historian Will Durant calls Gnosticism "the quest of godlike knowledge (gnosis) through mystic means" (The Story Of Civilization Vol. III, p. 604). Durant is correct. Gnosticism is thinly veiled Pantheism. Pantheism is the doctrine that identifies God with and in the whole universe, every particle, tree, table, animal, and person being are part of GOD. Or, to explain it in a very basic way, the Greek word pan = all. The Greek word theos = God). Therefore it literally means "God is All" and "All is God".

    The Gnostics taught that the physical (material) is evil and the spiritual (non-material) is good. Thus, a good god (spiritual) could not have created a physical world, because good can not create evil (that is the spiritual would not create the physical). So the Gnostic god created a being (or a line of beings called aeons) removing himself from direct creation. One of these aeons, or gods, created the world. The so-called Christian Gnostics believed that Jesus was one of these aeons who created the world. Some Gnostic taught that Jesus did not have a physical body. When he walked on the earth, he left not footprints because he never really touched the earth (he being spiritual and the world physical). Others taught that only our spiritual bodies were important, so the physical body could engage in whatever acts they desired because only the spiritual body would be saved. Still other Gnostics taught that the physical body was so evil that it must be denied in order for the spiritual body to gain salvation, thus shunning marriage and certain foods ().

    The influence of Gnosticism can be seen in some of the heresies of today. For example, many of the teachings stated above are found, in revised form, in the teachings of the Jehovah's Witnesses. To the Jehovah's Witness, Jesus is a created god, not God manifest in the flesh. It is no wonder that the Watchtower's New World Translation changes "God was manifest in the flesh" in 1 and replaces it with "He was made manifest in flesh." In the TR Greek which underlies our King James Bible reads it reads yeov (theos) (God) <2316> efanerwyh (Ephanerothe) (was manifested/revealed) <5319> (5681) en (in) <1722> sarki (sarki) (the flesh) <4561>. However, the Greek text which underlines the NWT has made a change, so it is natural for the Jehovah Witnesses to choose the reading which reflects their false doctrine. What is interesting is that the NIV, NASB, ESV, and perhaps others says "He" instead of "God," thus following part of the Gnostic corruption. Why, because the NWT, NASB, NIV and, ESV have as their base the corrupt Alexandrian text."

    "Christian" Gnosticisms Corruptions
     
  9. reddogs

    reddogs Contributor Supporter

    +283
    SDA
    Married
    US-Others
    And here is a good overview on the "these are the oldest thus best" idea:

    "The oldest representatives of the "purely" Alexandrian group of texts are the two "great" uncials, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus (Aleph and B, respectively). Both of these manuscripts date to the 4th century, with Vaticanus proffered as from the latter quarter of the century, and Sinaiticus being from around the middle of the century. Several scholars have even suggested that these uncials are two of the original 50 copies of the New Testament text which were made by Eusebius for official Church use at the behest of Emperor Constantine.5 Thus, the oldest pure Alexandrian manuscripts date to around 350 AD and after, nearly three centuries after the penning of the original autographs. The problem for the antiquity interpretation of the modern textual scholars which immediately arises is that corruption (both accidental and purposeful) in the New Testament text was greatest in the first two centuries after the revelation of the New Testament (roughly 80-200 AD). Scrivener argues that the worst corruption to strike the New Testament texts occurred within a century of their composition.6 Further, Colwell states that "The overwhelming majority of readings were created before the year 200..."7 It was during this period, while many books were still in the process of filtering out to Christian communities all across the Empire, that heretical texts would have been easiest to introduce and pass off as legitimate Scripture. Kilpatrick argues that with the advent of the 3rd century, it then became nearly impossible to change the text of the New Testament in a way which would have been either accepted or unnoticed by Christians at large, "Origen's treatment of Matt. 19:19 is significant in two other ways. First he was probably the most influential commentator of the Ancient Church and yet his conjecture at this point seems to have influenced only one manuscript of a local version of the New Testament. The Greek tradition is apparently unaffected by it. From the third century onward even an Origen could not effectively alter that text. "This brings us to the second significant point - his date.

    From the early third century onward the freedom to alter the text which had obtained earlier can no longer be practiced. Tatian is the last author to make deliberate changes in the text of whom we have explicit information. Between Tatian and Origen Christian opinion had so changed that it was no longer possible to make changes in the text whether they were harmless or not."8 Thus, even by the 3rd century, and definitely by the fourth, the Scriptures were more thoroughly distributed and Christians were better able to compare texts and reject heretical manuscripts. Once the faithfulness in transmission for the texts had solidified, the issue then becomes one of competing textual lines, between which Christians of that age had to choose. This is where the age of the Alexandrian exemplars actually works to the detriment of modern theories based upon antiquity.

    What needs to be understood about the ancient manuscripts is that there were basically two types of media for texts - vellum and papyrus. Neither of these media are especially durable. Vellum (dried skins of sheep or other animals) was more rugged and expensive, and was used in the copies of the Scriptures held for "official" use by the churches, and by more wealthy individuals. Both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are vellum manuscripts, and as such, were probably intended for use in Christian assemblies or liturgy. However, vellum scrolls will wear out over time through use and need to be replaced (just as a well-used Bible today will tend to do). Back in the day, they did not have rebinding services like we have for Bibles to give added years to the life of a scroll, so the scroll had to be transcribed into a new manuscript....

    The obvious point to all this, then, is: "why are such old exemplars even still in existence and in the relatively good condition which they are, since they are over fifteen centuries old?" The answer suggested by numerous scholars such as Van Bruggen, Pickering, and others is that these scrolls are in good condition despite their age because they were never used... " http://www.verhoevenmarc.be/PDF/GnosticCorruptions.pdf
     
  10. reddogs

    reddogs Contributor Supporter

    +283
    SDA
    Married
    US-Others
    Bumping up..
     
  11. AdamjEdgar

    AdamjEdgar Active Member

    451
    +139
    Australia
    SDA
    Married
    First, a bit of a preamble...
    Reddogs...as you are an SDA according to your profile, I wish to affirm the following

    1. I am a trinitarian and do not have any problem using a variety of translations
    2. I believe entirely in the heavenly sanctuary...i am not a follower of Des Ford
    3. I have studied E.G White's writings many years ago, however, I have barely studied them in 20 years. Whilst I do not discount E.G. White's writings, I do not read any of her work in the search for bible doctrine (we do not need her for that revelation). Whether or not she is inspired is, in my view, a side issue to SDA doctrine concerning the Sabbath, the sanctuary, the state of the dead, the second coming, and finally, the Millenium.
    4. I do believe that E.G White's writings on education and health are fundamental to better Christian living and learning. However, to be honest, as a parent I am absolutely crap at doing a good job at implementing what she has given us on these things.
    5. I follow a relatively strict vegetarian diet - my conscience tells me i should for a number of reasons that I need not go into here.

    I have skipped over the 3 pages in between your first post and here (sorry about that, but i don't want to have my answer influenced and contaminate my response to your question with any argy bargy...i will read back through later).

    What I have written below is simply my own view at this point in time.

    End of preamble -----------------------------------------------------------

    I do not see any difference between KJV and NIV or any other of the versions posted in your original question.

    We must look at what it is that the passage is trying to convey...what is the aim of the text...is it to tell us Jesus came in the flesh or, is it trying to explain to us that any spirit that does not confess that Jesus is from God is the antichrist?

    This text is not a triune God text...it was never meant to be a reference to the trinity, that is not its purpose.

    The same can be said of another supposedly great trinitarian text found in the KJV (we all know the text well...1 John 5:5-8) Believe it or not, the text below is not actually meant to be a trinitarian text...it was never supposed to be either...the extended KJV version where the scribe has added vs 7 in universally accepted now to have done so in error as it was quite not in the original codex.

    KJV version
    5Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God? 6This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. 7For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

    Codex Sinaiticus
    6 This is he that came through water and blood, Jesus Christ: not in the water only, but in the water and in the blood; and it is the Spirit that testifies, because the Spirit is the truth.
    7 For they that testify are three,
    8 the Spirit, and the water, and the blood, and the three are one.

    What is the purpose of the above text...what is it actually trying to explain to us?

    If we go back through 1 John 5, we find that almost all of the previous verses in the chapter state the following... "being born of God" and "keeping his commandments". Then at this point, the writer explains to us that in order to overcome the evil of the world we must believe in Jesus Christ (born of water and blood) and the spirit bears witness to him because the spirit is truth.

    John then finishes off Chapter 5 by telling us that God has saved us through his Son and that if we believe on him we may have eternal life. This is the essence of 1 John Chapter 5. It is not a trinity passage of scripture...it is not about that!


    We need to ensure that we do not get caught up in the game of trying to criticize scripture because it apparently doesn't fit our doctrine (JW's do this). Instead, simply take the scripture for what is written. If something doesn't add up, absolutely compare with other texts, however, do not fall into the KJV only trap for doctrine, that would be a very big mistake. It is also a huge stumbling block to others as they start to wonder if perhaps the entire bible is not inspired because of inconsistencies in its pages between translations...some churches claiming one translation, some another (good example of a very educated person who lost their way because of this issue - one of the worlds foremost "current" scholars on New Testament history, Bart Erhman)

    Thats my view on this question...now i shall go back and read some of the responses already posted.

    EDIT...might i add what the latin vulgate has for this text...remember that prior to the discovery of Codex Sinaiticus, the Vulgate was one of the oldest "complete" translations of the bible. Even Vaticanus was not fully known until much more recently (19th century) although it dates back to A.D 300-325. Anyhow, what you see in the KJV is not in the Vulgate.

    et omnis spiritus qui solvit Iesum ex Deo non est et hoc est antichristi quod audistis quoniam venit et nunc iam in mundo est

    And every spirit that dissolveth Jesus is not of God. And this is Antichrist, of whom you have heard that he cometh: and he is now already in the world.

    Finally, after reading a number of your other posts...let me just say this, I would strongly advise you to avoid falling into the trap the TR is king view! I have watched numerous debates on this topic and in all honesty, it is a fruitless exercise that will not lead you anywhere. The problem is rather simple, one cannot (and i stress cannot), one cannot possibly take the view that just because scholars claim that the second century was the most likely period of bible corruption in history, then codex sinaiticus, vatincanus, and the vulgate are corrupt manuscripts. This is absolutely foolishness. The reality is, the KJV came from a manuscript that is just as likely to have been corrupted because it too was written at the same time. Just because there were more copies made, it still started in the same region. Its a straw man argument!

    My dad, an SDA minister as i have previously stated, believes ALL scripture is inspired by God. What we need to do is simply take an eclectic approach to reading it...study a variety of sources and try our best to figure out where the doctrine supporting texts for things such as the trinity actually are. I can confidently assure you, the text you originally quoted are not trinitarian texts anyway...their absence from certain translations based on Sinaiticus or Vaticanus does not change the doctrine of the trinity in any way!

    Might i suggest that you do a youtube lookup of Dr James White. He is a reformed baptist (i do not share his views on lots of things), however, he is an expert on this very topic and well worth listening to his debates on textual criticism and also the trinity. He is a very good speaker who is easy to listen to as well (just have to get past the Im a bigger/better scholar than everyone else inferences he keeps making in debates). I dont tend to worry too much about the tripe on his weekly program...search through his debates they are gold!
     
    Last edited: Oct 3, 2021
  12. reddogs

    reddogs Contributor Supporter

    +283
    SDA
    Married
    US-Others
    If you are a SDA, then take a little time to see what these versions do to doctrine... NIV changes, from 'ta hagia' to 'hagia haggiwn'.
     
  13. AdamjEdgar

    AdamjEdgar Active Member

    451
    +139
    Australia
    SDA
    Married
    None of these are a problem for doctrine...they do not do anything to doctrine...our doctrines do not come from single verses in the bible, they come from considering the overall biblical themes based on a large variety of texts. That is the entire point. The majority vs critical text debate has gotten so ridiculous that proponents of the inerrancy of the TR go down pathways of supposed doctrine-proof texts that ignore obvious themes of the very passages being quoted.

    The idea that the TR debate is used as a means of proving scripture is fundamentally a terrible pathway to go down...one does not need to do this if an eclectic approach is taken (use a variety of texts to develop doctrine).

    The bible says "all scripture is the inspired word of God" (2Timothy 3:10-17) believe it or not, that even includes the Apocrypha! Now the key here is not to then say the Apocrypha should be in the bible canon and promoted to a pedal stool of infallibility (that would be a mistake), however, we can use it when verses in the Apocrypha are consistent with biblical themes and do not contradict other Bible writings...and this is the key to the Majority (TR/KJV) vs critical textual(Sinaiticus etc) debate and developing doctrine.

    You need to move away from the pathway you are on...it is not a pathway that the SDA church even promotes!

    Can ask you this...as just but one example...

    Does it make any difference at all to your salvation if Jesus did not enter the Most Holy place in 1844?

    The Bible simply says to us regarding savlation...

    New King James Version
    So they said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.”

    New International Version
    They replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household.”

    New Living Translation
    They replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved, along with everyone in your household.”

    English Standard Version
    And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.”

    Berean Study Bible
    They replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved, you and your household.”

    Berean Literal Bible
    And they said, "Believe on the Lord Jesus and you will be saved, you and your household."


    Another critique using the Heavenly Sanctuary example,

    God taught the Israelites about salvation by instigating the earthly sanctuary. We as SDA's obtain our doctrine of the Heavenly Sanctuary because God gave us (spiritual Israel) the earthly Sanctuary and its services on which to base that doctrine. You appear to believe that we developed that doctrine only from the TR. That is absolutely false.

    Finally, it is quite easy to even prove the doctrines of the trinity, heavenly sanctuary and Sabbath from the NW Translation (Jehovahs Witness Watch Tower version)...all these doctrines are found even in that abominable effort at corrupting the scriptures!

    The reason why denominations like the JW;s do not have good doctrine is not because of a bible translation...the New Covenant given to us in Hebrews 8:8 is not on tablets of stone...it is not written in the bible.

    In the New Covenant, God wrote his statutes and laws in our minds and hearts. God is the one who is to keep up his end of the bargain..God is the one making and keeping the promises, not sinful mankind. In the original "Old Covenant", it was the Israelites who agreed to keep his statutes and laws and they did not.

    God gave the israelites the opportunity to make good on their promises even though i am sure he knew what the outcome would be. He did not predestine them to failure, he gave them choice...however i believe that he did have a plan in the event that they did fail (that is what any smart leader would do...have a plan B)

    Ultimately, the Holy Spirit is what leads us to truth...not a bible translation! There will be people in heaven who did not even know God. A bible translation in and of itself won't save anyone.

    Jesus confirmed this in Matthew 25

    34Then the King will say to those on His right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. 35For I was hungry and you gave Me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave Me something to drink, I was a stranger and you took Me in, 36I was naked and you clothed Me, I was sick and you looked after Me, I was in prison and you visited Me.’
    37Then the righteous will answer Him, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry and feed You, or thirsty and give You something to drink? 38When did we see You a stranger and take You in, or naked and clothe You? 39When did we see You sick or in prison and visit You?’
    40And the King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of Mine, you did for Me.’
     
    Last edited: Oct 3, 2021
  14. reddogs

    reddogs Contributor Supporter

    +283
    SDA
    Married
    US-Others
    It is a clear attempt to cover the true doctrines with a haze of misdirection and misinterpretation. If it was a honest mistake or misunderstanding like the thief on the cross or Easter, then no harm no foul. But that is not the case.
     
  15. reddogs

    reddogs Contributor Supporter

    +283
    SDA
    Married
    US-Others
  16. AdamjEdgar

    AdamjEdgar Active Member

    451
    +139
    Australia
    SDA
    Married
    a sample of quotes from the above reference...(this is the kind of crud that decent Christians have to put up with from idiot conservatives)...

    I use to attend an ultra conservative SDA church in the hills...Every sabbath I would have plenty to say...I am tired of the lovey dovey peace and safety gospel being preached from every pulpit in every denomination. I have been rebuked many times, and the last time I attended one of the local churches here what a fiasco.

    lead us to God's holy word the KJV bible. If you ever see a teacher, teaching in Christs Name and is leading people to himself, which, ehem will never happen right?, we are to shun that teacher pastor or even whole denomination.

    A response from one on the above thread

    Sorry but I would need chapter and verse specifically naming the KJV to make me ignore the Greek and Hebrew texts and giving them preeminence.


    what I find interesting about that discussion...
    1. its basic premise is misleading...and in the modern day is actually downright false! People have gone to modern translations because they are easier to understand, not because there is better (or worse) doctrine in them!

    2. Almost all of the "counterfeit naysayers" who are clearly idiots, claimed that their own SDA ministers/ publishers/teachers were leading them up the garden path!

    Now I ask if one goes to a church where a university-trained theological graduate in biblical languages and SDA beliefs, is a mentor/leader/spiritual advisor (whatever one wishes to call them), why would one then go around discounting what that same pastor said about using additional bible translations alongside KJV?

    In my growing up as the son of an SDA minister, I have seen and heard of so many of these idiot members writing letters of complaint to church hierarchy because the minister didn't use a particular bible, or we are using the wrong hymn book, someone played drums in church...etc it's ridiculous. So many good preachers and committed Christians are lost from the ranks of our churches because of these overly conservative idiots...they do not know the harm that they do!

    On the whole, you will find few SDA ministers who subscribe to the nonsense that the KJV is the only source of true scripture. That is a completely bogus argument and honestly, particularly to those of us who have studied at Adventist Universities, its an insult to anyone with any intelligence. It is feeding the wrong message to others.

    I would urge anyone who garbages on about this rot to distance themselves from conservative brainwashing, you are not doing yourself or the reputation of the church any favours and it is not what you should be focusing on!

    In heaven, Jesus is not going to be checking what bible translation you hold under your arm, nor is he going to discard those who read the wrong bible translation according to conservative TR/KJV only idiots!

    I am certain that there will even be "practising" Muslims in heaven. They will not be there because they knew Jesus, they will be there because they "did it to the least of these my brethren" (ie fed the poor, cared for the sick etc)

    As an illustration of where the KJV only debate, and indeed overly fundamentalist views, leads at its worst...check out the following on a KJV only fundamentalist Baptist minister S Anderson. This guy is banned from almost every western country in the world...

    Anti-gay preacher Steven Anderson banned from Ireland
    https://www.preachersofhate.com/steven-anderson/

    Now please understand, I am not saying that we should ignore the KJV. I love the translation and am a real fan of it...it is by far my most favoured bible and I have an officially licensed Collins Clear-Type Press Gutenberg KJV that my late mother-in-law brought back to Australia from the UK many years ago...I use it constantly and it holds pride of place beside my bedside table at nighttime and finds itself next to my computer daily (where it is right now).

    A final thought on this post...the early Christians did not follow the Bible around the globe, the Bible followed them (they took Jesus' Testament with them). Hopefully, this might help dispel the nonsense that translations that went south into Egypt got corrupted and are therefore to be discounted.
     
    Last edited: Oct 4, 2021
  17. Gary K

    Gary K Well-Known Member

    720
    +228
    United States
    SDA
    Married
    US-Constitution
    I don't know what all reddogs has posted on the sources of translations so this might be redundant.

    Almost all modern translations are based upon the Westcott and Hort translation. What I would point out here is that both men were into spiritualism and socialism, Fabian socialism to be specific, as the Fabians were searching for a religion other than Christianity, The following linked to article traces this out. I would also like to say that I have verified this through a couple of secular Fabian socialist books written very early in the 20th century. I have these out of copyright books because I have researched socialism quite deeply. I was quite surprised to see Wescott and Hort mentioned in those books as leading individuals in both movements. They were not the most important leaders , but they were viewed as important.

    I say that to take my spiritual food from a source connected to the occult and an ideology such as Fabian socialism, both of which are very strongly anti-God, is a very dangerous thing to do, spiritually.

    http://pdf.amazingdiscoveries.org/R...d_Occult_Connections_of_Westcott_and_Hort.pdf
     
  18. sunshineforJesus

    sunshineforJesus is so in love with God CF Ambassadors Supporter

    +11,872
    United States
    Pentecostal
    Single
    US-Republican
    I dont think so,I use several different versions although my fave is New king James.
     
  19. GOD Shines Forth!

    GOD Shines Forth! Well-Known Member Supporter

    +2,008
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Single
    null
     
  20. AdamjEdgar

    AdamjEdgar Active Member

    451
    +139
    Australia
    SDA
    Married
    Codex Sinaiticus predates Westcot and Hort by...well...oh about 1500 years!

    If the scribe (or scribes) who worked on Sinaiticus somehow were influenced by two spirit mediums from the future...???

    The point is, if one is to go back through the various translations that we have today and compare them with Sinaiticus, we can see then what differences there are. As an additional backup, the Vulgate was translated in about late 4th century (so again...at least 1400 years earlier than Westcott and Hort). Whilst obviously it has been updated a number of times throughout the Centuries...it still predates KJV by a long long time.

    Even if one talks the TR (Textus Receptus) I think we are looking at about 1500's in order to find a complete manuscript...so its certainly not an ancient work.

    For those who don't consider these things before howling down Westcott and Hort translations, i would urge some historical facts are kept in check...leading newbies up the garden path by telling white lies and half-truths is not a particularly good thing to do!

    My conclusion is this...one should never take doctrine from a single point of reference (particularly Bible translations). One should always make comparisons across the spectrum to ensure consistency and resolve conflicts that may arise.

    As just a point of interest, it would be foolishness to attempt to explain the trinity to a JW using the KJV and not knowing which texts are likely added to that Bible that are not found in translations (such as the NWT).
     
Loading...