Does it matter which version of the Bible you read?

GOD Shines Forth! · Oct 5, 2021

AdamjEdgar said:
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).

So many of the teachers I listen to use the KJV and are, if not KJ onlyists, certainly in favor of it. It sounds fine to my ears when they are quoting it, but I find reading it clunky.

One beef they have is with modern versions playing down the deity of Christ. Yet when I first heard that argument I immediately remembered this passage in my ESV (and, prior to that, the NIV):

7Of the angels he says,

“He makes his angels winds,
and his ministers a flame of fire.”

8But of the Son he says,

“Your throne, O God, is forever and ever,
the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom.
9You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness;
therefore God, your God, has anointed you
with the oil of gladness beyond your companions.”

10And,

“You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning,
and the heavens are the work of your hands;
11they will perish, but you remain;
they will all wear out like a garment,
12like a robe you will roll them up,
like a garment they will be changed.a
But you are the same,
and your years will have no end.”
—Hebrews 1

Pretty blatant acknowledgement of The Son as Deity and Creator!

Gary K · Oct 5, 2021

AdamjEdgar said:
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).

If you call lack of personal Biblical knowledge evidence against the KGV, well, I don't know what to tell you, And if you see nothing wrong with occult sources and membership in an anti God political movement, I'm certainly going to distrust anything you have to say. Plus, if you call gratuitous insults and logical fallacies discussion and evidence I have no desire to discuss anything with you.

Have a day.

AdamjEdgar · Oct 5, 2021

Anyone can google the historical narrative and timeline for the various well-known sources used in all translations and it will very quickly become obvious that the KJV is not an ancient translation...it was compiled by a scholar at the hands of King James himself in the 1600's.

I wonder how many people realise that the Textus Receptus (TR) referenced quite heavily the much earlier 4th century work of Jerome...the Latin Vulgate?

If we then go forward looking more specifically at the King James Bible we find out the following rather alarming information...

"In January 1604, King James convened the Hampton Court Conference, where a new English version was conceived in response to the problems of the earlier translations perceived by the Puritans,[7] a faction of the Church of England.[8]"

"James gave the translators instructions intended to ensure that the new version would conform to the ecclesiology—and reflect the episcopal structure—of the Church of England and its belief in an ordained clergy."

To say therefore that the critical texts are based a corrupted translations considering the KJV story is not an accurate reflection of the truth about the philosophy behind the KJV translation.

The fact that people ignore the absolute reality that Codex Sinaiticus predates the KJV by well over 1,000 years (yes that is over a THOUSAND years), the point about corruption is just absurd.

Sure we can argue about whether or not Sinaiticus was really found in a waste paper basket or not (which the monastery denied at the time Tischendorf wrote that statement)...the fact remains, it was copied and preserved for almost 1500 years for a reason. I believe that considering the great efforts many men have gone to in order to destroy the Bible, any version of it we find that is so old is a witness to our Creator and Saviour.

I also find it incredible that Sinaiticus happened to be found in the same year that SDA church believes Jesus moved into the Most Holy place in the Heavenly Sanctuary. (please note i do not see that as evidence for its accuracy...however its a very interesting fact)

Another interesting bit of research i stumbled across last year...there is evidence that the original scholar, who was also an ordained priest, used to provide the translation of the NWT for the Jehovahs Witness was himself married to a spirit medium and that he consulted her in order to obtain guidance from God to determine which choices he should make when translating that Bible? The JW church distanced themselves from him once they found out decades later, however, they did not distance themselves from his abominable translation. The interesting thing is that they appear to have gone to great lengths to cover this up even from their own membership...this is what happens when one chooses a translation because it suits doctrine!

tall73 · Oct 6, 2021

For those interested:

https://whiteestate.org/legacy/issues-versions-html/

AdamjEdgar · Oct 7, 2021

tall73 said:
For those interested:

https://whiteestate.org/legacy/issues-versions-html/

I think this statement from her son should put the KJV only SDA's down and out for the count...its a dumb point of view to take and this proves that

As to Mrs. White's attitude toward the revisions of 1885 and 1901, and as to her own use of these in preaching and writing, her son, W. C. White, who was closely associated with her in her public ministry and in the preparation and publication of her books, wrote in 1931:

Page 7

"I do not know of anything in the E. G. White writings, nor can I remember of anything in Sister White's conversations, that would intimate that she felt that there was any evil in the use of the Revised Version. . . .

offtopic but I thought it might be of interest to some... October 6 is considered the anniversary of William Tyndale's strangulation and death at the stake for producing his version of the Bible although it is also claimed that his writing against Henry 8 marriage annulment might also be largely responsible for his betrayal and capture too.

zoidar · Oct 7, 2021

reddogs said:
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

It's helpful to read a few different Bibles parallelly. No Bible is perfect, except the originals. I have found it to give a broader sense of the true message.

AdamjEdgar · Oct 7, 2021

zoidar said:
It's helpful to read a few different Bibles parallelly. No Bible is perfect, except the originals. I have found it to give a broader sense of the true message.

It is not about just finding truth in other translations...it is about knowing other texts/passages of scripture.

For example,
there are lots of claims that only the King James bible is capable of producing definitive referencing capable of supporting the trinitarian doctrine.
Dr James White has consistently proven this view completely false.
The same goes with the incarnation.
There are other places in the bible where one can identify and explain the incarnation. SImply looking for a translation that has it is a false way of finding doctrine. If one consistently does this, "one will end up being converted by a JW" (metaphorically speaking)

1 Peter 3:18

New International Version
For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive in the Spirit.

New Living Translation
Christ suffered for our sins once for all time. He never sinned, but he died for sinners to bring you safely home to God. He suffered physical death, but he was raised to life in the Spirit.

English Standard Version
For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit,

Romans 8:3

New International Version
For what the law was powerless to do because it was weakened by the flesh, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in the flesh,

New Living Translation
The law of Moses was unable to save us because of the weakness of our sinful nature. So God did what the law could not do. He sent his own Son in a body like the bodies we sinners have. And in that body God declared an end to sin’s control over us by giving his Son as a sacrifice for our sins.

English Standard Version
For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh,

A major text for the incarnation is found in the Gospel of John...the following from the Berean Study Bible.

The Word Became Flesh
(Psalm 84:1–12)

14The Word became flesh and made His dwelling among us.b We have seen His glory, the glory of the one and only Sonc from the Father, full of grace and truth.15John testified concerning Him. He cried out, saying, “This is He of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me has surpassed me because He was before me.’ ”

reddogs · Feb 23, 2024

AdamjEdgar said:
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).

Yes, but when was it found, not 1500 years ago but a interesting year...'In 1844, 43 leaves of a 4th-century biblical codex (a collection of single pages bound together along one side) were discovered at St. Catherine’s Monastery at the foot of Mount Sinai (hence the name Sinaiticus). The German biblical scholar Konstantin von Tischendorf (1815–74) found several hundred additional leaves, constituting the majority of the present manuscript, at the monastery in 1859.'.. Codex Sinaiticus | Earliest Known Biblical Manuscript

I came across a site that showed which version was based on what so one knows...

American Standard Version
Modern English 1901 Masoretic Text, Westcott and Hort 1881 and Tregelles 1857

American King James Version
Modern English 1999 Revision of the King James Version

Amplified Bible
Modern English 1965 Revision of the American Standard Version

An American Translation
Modern English 1935 Masoretic Text, various[which?] Greek texts.

ArtScroll Tanakh (Old Testament)
Modern English 1996 Masoretic Text

An American Translation
Modern English 1976 Masoretic Text, various[which?] Greek texts.

Berkeley Version
Modern English 1958

Bible in English
Modern English 1949

The Bible in Living English
Modern English 1972

Bishops' Bible
Early Modern English 1568 Masoretic Text, Textus Receptus

Catholic Public Domain Version
Modern English 2009 Sixtus V and Clement VIII Latin Vulgate

Children's King James Version
Modern English 1962 Revision of the King James Version.

Christian Community Bible, English version
Modern English 1986 Hebrew and Greek

Clear Word Bible
Modern English 1994

Complete Jewish Bible
Modern English 1998 Paraphrase of the Jewish Publication Society of America Version (Old Testament), and from the original Greek (New Testament).

Contemporary English Version
Modern English 1995

Concordant Literal Version
Modern English Restored Greek syntax. A concordance of every form of every Greek word was made and systematized and turned into English. The whole Greek vocabulary was analyzed and translated, using a standard English equivalent for each Greek element.

A Conservative Version
Modern English 2005

Coverdale Bible
Early Modern English
1535 Masoretic Text, the Greek New Testament of Erasmus, Vulgate, and German and Swiss-German Bibles (Luther Bible, Zürich Bible and Leo Jud's Bible)

Darby Bible
Modern English 1890 Masoretic Text, various critical editions of the Greek text (i.a. Tregelles, Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort)

Douay-Rheims Bible
Early Modern English
1582 (New Testament)
1609,1610 (Old Testament) Latin, Greek and Hebrew manuscripts

Douay-Rheims Bible (Challoner Revision)
Modern English 1752 Clementine Vulgate

EasyEnglish Bible
Modern English 2001 Wycliffe Associates (UK)

Easy-to-Read Version
Modern English 1989 Textus Receptus, United Bible Society (UBS) Greek text, Nestle-Aland Text

Emphasized Bible
Modern English 1902 Translated by Joseph Bryant Rotherham based on The New Testament in the Original Greek and Christian David Ginsburg's Massoretico-critical edition of the Hebrew Bible (1894)

English Jubilee 2000 Bible
Modern English 2000 Reina-Valera (1602 Edition)

English Standard Version
Modern English 2001 Revision of the Revised Standard Version. (Westcott-Hort, Weiss, Tischendorf Greek texts)

Ferrar Fenton Bible
Modern English 1853 Masoretic Text and the Westcott and Hort Greek text

Geneva Bible
Early Modern English
1557 (New Testament)
1560 (complete Bible) Masoretic Text, Textus Receptus

God's Word
Modern English 1995

Good News Bible
Modern English 1976 United Bible Society (UBS) Greek text

Great Bible
Early Modern English 1539 Masoretic Text, Greek New Testament of Erasmus, the Vulgate, and the Luther Bible.

Holman Christian Standard Bible
Modern English 2004 Masoretic Text, Nestle-Aland Text.

The Inclusive Bible
Modern English 2007 From the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek

International Standard Version
Modern English 2011

Jerusalem Bible
Modern English 1966 From the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, with influence from the French La Bible de Jérusalem.

Jesus' Disciples Bible
Early Modern English 2012 Masoretic Text, Textus Receptus, Tyndale 1526 NT, some Erasmus manuscripts, and Bezae 1598 TR.

Jewish Publication Society of America Version Tanakh (Old Testament)
Modern English 1917 Masoretic Text

Judaica Press Tanakh (Old Testament).
Modern English1963 Masoretic Text

Julia E. Smith Parker Translation
Modern English 1876 Masoretic Text, Textus Receptus

King James 2000 Version
Modern English 2000 Revision of the King James Version.

King James Easy Reading Version
Modern English 2010 Revision of the King James Version. The Received Text.

King James Version
Early Modern English 1611 Masoretic Text, Textus Receptus, Tyndale 1526 NT, some Erasmus manuscripts, and Bezae 1598 TR.

King James II Version
Modern English 1971 Masoretic Text, Textus Receptus

Knox's Translation of the Vulgate
Modern English 1955 Vulgate, with influence from the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.

Lamsa Bible
Modern English 1933 Syriac Pesh*tta

A Literal Translation of the Bible
Modern English 1985 Masoretic Text, Textus Receptus (Estienne 1550)

Leeser Bible, Tanakh (Old Testament)
Modern English 1994 Masoretic Text

The Living Bible
Modern English 1971

American Standard Version (paraphrase)

The Living Torah and The Living Nach. Tanakh (Old Testament)
Modern English 1994 Masoretic Text

Matthew's Bible
Early Modern English1537 Masoretic Text, the Greek New Testament of Erasmus, the Vulgate, the Luther Bible, and a French version[which?].

The Message
Modern English 2002

Modern King James Version
Modern English 1990 Masoretic Text, Textus Receptus

Modern Language Bible
Modern English 1969

Moffatt, New Translation
Modern English 1926

James Murdock's Translation of the Syriac Pesh*tta
Modern English Syriac Pesh*tta

New American Bible
Modern English 1970

New American Standard Bible
Modern English 1971 Masoretic Text, Nestle-Aland Text

New Century Version
Modern English 1991

New English Bible
Modern English 1970 Masoretic Text, Greek New Testament

New English Translation (NET Bible)
Modern English 2005 Masoretic Text, Nestle-Aland/United Bible Society Greek New Testament

New International Reader's Version
Modern English 1998 New International Version (simplified syntax, but loss of conjunctions obscures meanings)

New International Version Inclusive Language Edition
Modern English 1996 Revision of the New International Version.

New International Version
Modern English 1978 Masoretic Text, Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament (based on Westcott-Hort, Weiss and Tischendorf, 1862).

New Jerusalem Bible
Modern English 1985 From the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, with influence from the French La Bible de Jérusalem.

New Jerusalem Bible
Modern English 1985 From the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, with influence from the French La Bible de Jérusalem.

New Jewish Publication Society of America Version. Tanakh (Old Testament)
Modern English 1985 Masoretic Text

New King James Version
Modern English 1982 Masoretic Text (Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, 1983), Majority text (Hodges-Farstad, 1982)

New Life Version
Modern English 1986

New Living Translation
Modern English 1996

New Revised Standard Version
Modern English 1989 Revision of the Revised Standard Version.

New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures
Modern English 1950 (New Testament)
1960 (single volume complete Bible)
1984 (reference edition with footnotes)
Westcott and Hort's Greek New Testament, Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, Hebrew J documents, as well as various other families of Hebrew and Greek manuscripts

The Orthodox Study Bible
Modern English 2008 Adds a new translation of the LXX to an existing translation of the NKJV in a single volume.

Quaker Bible
Modern English 1764 Masoretic Text, Textus Receptus

Recovery Version of the Bible
Modern English1985 Revision of the American Standard Version and Darby Bible.

Revised Version
Modern English1885 Revision of the King James Version, but with a critical New Testament text: Westcott and Hort 1881 and Tregelles 1857

Revised Standard Version
Modern English 1952 Masoretic Text, Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament.

Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition
Modern English 1966 Revision of the Revised Standard Version.

Revised English Bible
Modern English 1987 Revision of the New English Bible.

The Scriptures
Modern English & Hebrew (Divine Names) 1993, revised 1998 & revised 2009 Masoretic Text (Biblia Hebraica), Textus Receptus Greek text
Popular Messianic Translation by the Institute for Scripture Research

Simplified English Bible
Modern English.

The Story Bible
Modern English 1971 A summary/paraphrase, by Pearl S. Buck

Taverner's Bible
Early Modern English 1539 Minor revision of Matthew's Bible

Thomson's Translation
Modern English 1808 Codex Vaticanus (according to the introduction in the reprint edition by S. F. Pells) of the Septuagint (but excluding the Apocrypha) and of the New Testament

Today's New International Version
Modern English 2005 Masoretic Text (Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, 1983), Nestle-Aland Greek text Revision of the New International Version.

Third Millennium Bible
Modern English 1998 Revision of the King James Version.

Tyndale Bible
Early Modern English 1526 (New Testament) 1530 (Pentateuch) Masoretic Text, Erasmus' third NT edition (1522), Martin Luther's 1522 German Bible. Incomplete translation. Tyndale's other Old Testament work went into the Matthew's Bible (1537).

Updated King James Version
Modern English 2004

A Voice In The Wilderness Holy Scriptures
Modern English 2003 Masoretic Text, Textus Receptus

Webster's Revision
Modern English1833 Revision of the King James Version.

Westminster Bible
Modern English 1936 Greek and Hebrew

The Work of God's Children Illustrated Bible[4]
Modern English 2010 Revision of the Challoner Revision of the Douay-Rheims Bible. Released into the public domain by The Work of God's Children (nonprofit corporation)

Wycliffe's Bible (1380)
Middle English 1380 Latin Vulgate

Wycliffe's Bible (1388)
Middle English 1388 Latin Vulgate

Young's Literal Translation
Modern English 1862 Masoretic Text, Textus Receptus

reddogs · Feb 23, 2024

AdamjEdgar said:
It is not about just finding truth in other translations...it is about knowing other texts/passages of scripture.

For example,
there are lots of claims that only the King James bible is capable of producing definitive referencing capable of supporting the trinitarian doctrine.
Dr James White has consistently proven this view completely false.
The same goes with the incarnation.
There are other places in the bible where one can identify and explain the incarnation. SImply looking for a translation that has it is a false way of finding doctrine. If one consistently does this, "one will end up being converted by a JW" (metaphorically speaking)

1 Peter 3:18

New International Version
For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive in the Spirit.

New Living Translation
Christ suffered for our sins once for all time. He never sinned, but he died for sinners to bring you safely home to God. He suffered physical death, but he was raised to life in the Spirit.

English Standard Version
For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit,

Romans 8:3

New International Version
For what the law was powerless to do because it was weakened by the flesh, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in the flesh,

New Living Translation
The law of Moses was unable to save us because of the weakness of our sinful nature. So God did what the law could not do. He sent his own Son in a body like the bodies we sinners have. And in that body God declared an end to sin’s control over us by giving his Son as a sacrifice for our sins.

English Standard Version
For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh,

A major text for the incarnation is found in the Gospel of John...the following from the Berean Study Bible.

The Word Became Flesh
(Psalm 84:1–12)

14The Word became flesh and made His dwelling among us.b We have seen His glory, the glory of the one and only Sonc from the Father, full of grace and truth.15John testified concerning Him. He cried out, saying, “This is He of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me has surpassed me because He was before me.’ ”

Try finding... Acts 8:27
And he arose and went: and, behold, a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch of great authority under Candace queen of the Ethiopians, who had the charge of all her treasure, and had come to Jerusalem for to worship,

BibleLinguist · Mar 20, 2024

Being new to this discussion, there is much to catch up on. The following items are addressed in the order in which they appeared in this thread.

public hermit said:
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.

I am not convinced that the NIV is worthy of consideration for anything relative to Bible doctrine. This is not a KJV-only statement, but it is based on facts pertaining to its translation which will get additional attention in my future remarks.

Hank77 said:
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:

This is an important text, and one that is much misunderstood. In order to have the context for John's statement, one must see what Jesus himself taught about his Father and about himself.

Jesus about his Father:
"But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth." (John 4:23-24)

Jesus about himself:
"Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have." (Luke 24:39)

Very clearly Jesus is saying 1) God is a spirit; 2) a spirit does not have flesh and bones; and 3) he (Jesus) has flesh and bones.

If one does not put careful attention to those statements, one cannot understand John's statements about the antichrist.

John regarding the antichrist spirit
"Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: 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." (1 John 4:2-3)

Note that if someone says "Jesus is God," he or she must necessarily deny that Jesus had "come in the flesh," because Jesus himself taught that God is a spirit and does not have flesh. This "spirit of antichrist" is the prevailing sentiment of Trinitarian dogma which teaches that Jesus is God (more on this later in this post), and John's testimony that "ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world" is prophetic and profound. The Trinity dogma was developed in the fourth century, but the seeds of it first appeared near the end of John's lifetime.

reddogs said:
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.

The Bible teaches that Christ's divinity was the indwelling presence of his Father. Jesus stated this so clearly that even the NIV cannot hide it.

"So Jesus said, “When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am the one I claim to be and that I do nothing on my own but speak just what the Father has taught me." (John 8:28, NIV)

"But if I do it, even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.”" (John 10:38, NIV)

"Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work." (John 14:10, NIV)

reddogs said:
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...

Note that removing a text which addresses Jesus as "the Son of God" is actually taking a swipe at his humanity.

solid_core said:
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

#1 Above is definitely a heresy if considered from the Catholic viewpoint.

reddogs said:
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..

I would guess the pattern is that of downplaying Christ's humanity. Notice that these verses address "the Son of man" and try to equate him, instead, with God.

BibleLinguist · Mar 20, 2024

AdamjEdgar said:
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

I think the "I am a trinitarian" has much to do with the fact you do "not have any problem using a variety of translations."

AdamjEdgar said:
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.

Perhaps her writings would be helpful with respect to this subject. The Ellen White Estate seems to have hidden for decades some key statements on Bible versions which I will place in my next post here.

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

There are most certainly differences. And they are significant differences. If you do not see them, it may be that you have already accepted the differences into your viewpoint.

AdamjEdgar said:
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.

On this point I would heartily agree. Well said.

AdamjEdgar said:
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.

I think even the Adventist Bible commentary indicates that the Johannine Comma does not belong to the text. If I recall, it is there explained how the text got added. Essentially, the Comma was a marginal note written in Latin for centuries. After more than a thousand years from Christ, someone translated it into Greek. Another someone then later placed it into the text itself, rather than leaving it as a marginal note. Almost all Biblical scholars acknowledge that it does not belong to the text--so KJV is not to be commended in this instance. Our Adventist pioneers also published the fact that this text was not part of John's writings, but had been added later, and Ellen White never once quoted it.

AdamjEdgar said:
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)

Again, we largely agree here. The KJV was translated with a bias (notably, a Trinitarian one). It is far better than most modern translations, which have even more bias, but there is no such thing as a perfect translation.

AdamjEdgar said:
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!

The codices and vulgate are corrupt simply because they were corrupted by the scribes--a fact plainly admitted by the Catholic church. It was not a matter of time period per se.

AdamjEdgar said:
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!

I have watched this "James White" debate the Trinity, and although he was far better prepared, and a better debater than his opponent, I found his "proofs" to be lacking. Even though he won the debate, from an objective viewpoint, it seemed to my mind that he had done so by choosing a weak opponent. Someone more knowledgeable and skilled at the art of debating would, I believe, put Mr. White to shame.

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

As this is a sticking point for those who question Mrs. White's inspiration, and may cause them to reject her writings, including writings of great importance to us, such as what she said about Bible revisions that would be published (see my next post), I think this question may very well make a difference to one's salvation.

AdamjEdgar said:
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.

I would modify that statement to say: "There will be people in heaven who did not even know God's name." I don't think anyone there will not have known God. Jesus' prediction in Matthew 25 of the separation of the sheep and the goats gives some indication of this.

AdamjEdgar said:
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!

But there is more to it than readability. The way is broad leading to destruction, as Jesus taught, not merely on account of laziness to study. Satan makes that path appear more attractive. There is a reason those translations have become popular--and it has much to do with the fact that truth is so often unpopular.

AdamjEdgar said:
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!

No, Jesus won't be checking which translation was read. But the translation chosen may mean many are not there in heaven to be checked in the first place. See Ellen White's statements on this in my next post.

AdamjEdgar said:
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).

As just another point of interest: The JW's were once Seventh-day Adventists, but split off over some doctrinal disagreement. At the time of the split, neither JW's nor Adventists believed in the Trinity. Adventists have come to the point where we have re-adopted that which we soundly rejected, by God's guidance, during the time of the Adventist pioneers--the charter members of our church. The JW's, on the other hand, appear to have remained firm on this point.

GOD Shines Forth! said:
So many of the teachers I listen to use the KJV and are, if not KJ onlyists, certainly in favor of it. It sounds fine to my ears when they are quoting it, but I find reading it clunky.

One beef they have is with modern versions playing down the deity of Christ. Yet when I first heard that argument I immediately remembered this passage in my ESV (and, prior to that, the NIV):

7Of the angels he says,

“He makes his angels winds,
and his ministers a flame of fire.”

8But of the Son he says,

“Your throne, O God, is forever and ever,
the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom.
9You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness;
therefore God, your God, has anointed you
with the oil of gladness beyond your companions.”

10And,

“You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning,
and the heavens are the work of your hands;
11they will perish, but you remain;
they will all wear out like a garment,
12like a robe you will roll them up,
like a garment they will be changed.a
But you are the same,
and your years will have no end.”
—Hebrews 1

Pretty blatant acknowledgement of The Son as Deity and Creator!

Hebrews 1:8 is one of the most egregious mistranslations in the KJV. The explanation of this requires some space to explain the grammar of the original languages, so I will reserve it for another post. However, most who use Hebrews 1:8 to support their belief that Jesus is God prefer to overlook Hebrews 1:6 which gives strong contrary evidence. I note that you did not quote it in your post here.

tall73 said:
For those interested:

Ellen G. White® Estate: The E. G. White Counsel on Versions of the Bible

The White Estate appears to have had an agenda. It is most unfortunate, and their position seems quite indefensible when one sees the totality of what Mrs. White wrote on the subject of Bible versions. Most believe she wrote nothing about it--and the White Estate uses her son's statements to defend their agenda, not disclosing the fact that she makes powerful statements exactly contrary to what they are teaching. See my next post for Mrs. White's own words on the matter.

AdamjEdgar said:
I think this statement from her son should put the KJV only SDA's down and out for the count...its a dumb point of view to take and this proves that

As to Mrs. White's attitude toward the revisions of 1885 and 1901, and as to her own use of these in preaching and writing, her son, W. C. White, who was closely associated with her in her public ministry and in the preparation and publication of her books, wrote in 1931:

Page 7

"I do not know of anything in the E. G. White writings, nor can I remember of anything in Sister White's conversations, that would intimate that she felt that there was any evil in the use of the Revised Version. . . .

Willie White's views here may well be correct. Ellen White's strongest statements (see my next post) on Bible versions were made in the context of editions yet future to her time.

AdamjEdgar said:
It is not about just finding truth in other translations...it is about knowing other texts/passages of scripture.

For example,
there are lots of claims that only the King James bible is capable of producing definitive referencing capable of supporting the trinitarian doctrine.
Dr James White has consistently proven this view completely false.

I agree that virtually all Bible versions exhibit a Trinitarian bias. The KJV has a strong such bias, but other versions are not exempt, as you rightly point out. However, the bias appears to affect different passages in different ways. To know what the Bible really says, it is good to read it in its original language.

BibleLinguist · Mar 20, 2024

For some inexplicable reason, the Ellen White Estate has not wanted to publish the following statements. Souls will be lost on account of this, as the statements themselves serve to indicate. I will highlight, via bold text, key statements for those who prefer to skim.

Do you desire to destroy the covenant between yourselves and your God? "A perpetual covenant" means just what it says. "It is a sign between Me and the children of Israel forever;" God declares, "for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day He rested, and was refreshed." [Verses 16, 17.] This is our evidence. You will see ere long that there will be those who will become weary of hearing repeated the things that they ought to do but do not desire to do, and they will change the wording of the Bible. We know what the Lord says in Revelation about those who do that. "A perpetual covenant" is a perpetual covenant. {21LtMs, Ms 146, 1906, par. 28}

Well, there was war in heaven, and all the disaffected ones were overcome and cast down to the earth. I want to tell you that that wonderful Lucifer who wanted the highest place, lost his hold of heaven. He would not repent, and therefore there are two parties in our world. There is one party that is striving that they may be overcomers by the blood of the Lamb and the word of their testimony. The party that rebelled in heaven had intelligence and knowledge, and they used them on the wrong side, to build up opposing elements. That is how they used their knowledge. Do you think that that party would have no influence with the highest parties on the earth? They felt perfectly capable of handling matters, and here was the work going right on in the earth. There were agencies that came from heaven. Why, they had intelligence, the greatest intelligence. They did not lose their intelligence all at once. But they had not the power, the connection with God, the power of discernment, to understand that if they repented, they could be brought back again. {25LtMs, Ms 80, 1910, par. 9}

Now what does Satan propose to do? He proposes that he is capable of changing this Bible. These parties that fell understand all about heaven, and that they can bring in the different sentiments from the Bible, and they are going to have a revision of it. You will see they will make revisions of the Bible, but every one of us needs to stand intelligently on the Word. We cannot afford to be careless, but we must have that simplicity of godliness that is a virtue to us. We must have it. {25LtMs, Ms 80, 1910, par. 10}

I tell you that Lucifer who fell from heaven, is a busy workman. He is working with all his power, and so are all those fallen angels; and they are highly educated. Did they lose all their education? They took their education and brought it along with them, that they might use it to grasp souls. They can make the plea of their wonderful intelligence, and we want to become intelligent, too, that we may be able to meet the powers of darkness, not by changing the Word, but by the very Word of God we can meet them. {25LtMs, Ms 81, 1910, par. 34}

Among the ten virgins only half were wise. We must not trust to mere theory, but [use] the oil of grace, that our lamps may shine so that the world will take knowledge of us that we have been with Jesus and learned of Him. Satan is watching that he may find the mind in an unguarded moment and so get possession of it. We do not want to be ignorant of his devices, neither do we want to be overpowered by his devices. He is pleased with the pictures that represent him as having horns and hoofs, for he has intelligence; he was once an angel of light. To these that trust in their intelligence he will make believe that they can correct the Scriptures. You are going to meet this infidelity in high places. {Ms11-1893.9}

You need the Holy Spirit of God, the divine power to co-operate with you to discern the track that the devil is preparing, and escape it. He is going to lead the religious world captive (2 Thessalonians 2:11). How dare they to lay their sacrilegious hands upon the Scriptures! We must bring the Sabbath of the Lord to the front. It is so plain, and so decided. It is a sign between the children of God and the children of the world. Please read (Exodus 31:17): "It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed." {Ms11-1893.10}

When Christ delivered His memorial Sermon on the Mount, He gave the exposition of His own law. The Pharisees thought He was dishonoring the law, for their traditions so covered the law that it could not be kept. Christ was bringing right principles before them, and these words fell upon their astonished ears: "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." Matthew 5:17, 18. If men with reasoning faculties pass over what the Lord Jesus Christ says, it becomes us to stand where we can defend the honor of the law of the Lord God of Israel. We can do so by presenting the truth as it is in Jesus. The enemy has ever labored to disconnect the law and the gospel. They go hand in hand. {Ms11-1893.11}

We know not how soon we shall be singled out as not being law abiding citizens, because the prince of the power of the air is getting possession of the minds of men. We can choose between obeying the powers that be and dishonoring God, or disobeying the powers that be and honoring God. If we obey God, His Holy Spirit is resting upon us, and we are not fighting with our own assertions, but with "It is written." All we have to do is to go back to the fourth commandment. Read the testimony of Jesus Christ that not even a little dot was to be altered, but it is just as written by the finger of God on the tables of stone. We should love the truth because it is truth. {Ms11-1893.12}

We are to maintain the inspiration of the Scriptures religiously and zealously, in a period of the world's [history] when men who claim to be religious are not religious as far as the sacred Scriptures are concerned. They are a pretense. They would change the Scriptures into an unreliable production and bring in forgery as the word of the Lord. {25LtMs, Ms 88, 1910, par. 2}

There is need of a close, earnest study of the Scriptures. The world has converted the churches; therefore the Scriptures are misinterpreted and misapplied. They are not searched as earnestly as they should be. Great worldly knowledge is not required in order to gain a knowledge of the Scriptures. In the third chapter of Second Peter, warnings and instructions are given in regard to what shall take place in the last days of this earth's history. {Ms132-1898.2}

"Wherefore beloved," the apostle says, "seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless. And account that the long-suffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according unto the wisdom given unto him, hath written unto you; as also in all of his epistles, speaking in some of them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they which are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their destruction." [Verses 14-16.] {Ms132-1898.3}

This is often done. It is the mind and character of the persons who study the Scriptures that makes the study dangerous. The difficulties will be removed from the way of those who search the Scriptures with earnest, humble hearts, praying to the Lord for wisdom. There is to be no cutting out of Scripture, no mutilating the Word, as the Catholics have done. The Bible is to be searched as a whole. The things in it hard to be understood will become plain through the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit. {Ms132-1898.4}

We read in Deuteronomy four: “Now therefore hearken, O Israel, unto the statutes and unto the judgments, which I teach you, for to do them that ye may live, and go in and possess the land which the Lord God of your fathers giveth you.” [Verse 1.] It is our life to be obedient children of God. This is the highest class of education. “Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish aught from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.” [Verse 2.] Now mind that. Men are changing the Bible to conform to the ideas of higher education, and they have those special ones that fell from heaven, that were so enlightened, to help them in making it a very grand thing, but it will be so grand that there will be very few who accept it that will ever enter heaven. {Ms84-1910.44}

Note that Ellen White's reference to Revelation in the first quoted paragraph above most certainly intends the following:

"For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book." (Revelation 22:18-19)

I believe these statements speak for themselves. Unfortunately, beginning at the 1919 Bible Conference, our church has taken the stance that one may choose any Bible version he or she pleases. These Ellen White statements were kept under wraps until the general release of all of her manuscripts in 2015. They are now available online, but were not included on the EGW CDs.

As the last paragraph quoted above indicates, the issue of Bible versions affects one's eligibility for Heaven. In light of this, the topic question of the thread should be clearly answered: YES. It does matter which version of the Bible you read.

Hank77 · Mar 21, 2024

BibleLinguist said:
This is an important text, and one that is much misunderstood. In order to have the context for John's statement, one must see what Jesus himself taught about his Father and about himself.

1 John 4:2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:

Jesus is the promised Messiah. He has come in the flesh, has died, and was raised up as Lord and Savior. We know these things because the Spirit of God has shown us these truths.

reddogs · Mar 25, 2024

GOD Shines Forth! said:
So many of the teachers I listen to use the KJV and are, if not KJ onlyists, certainly in favor of it. It sounds fine to my ears when they are quoting it, but I find reading it clunky.

One beef they have is with modern versions playing down the deity of Christ. Yet when I first heard that argument I immediately remembered this passage in my ESV (and, prior to that, the NIV):

7Of the angels he says,

“He makes his angels winds,
and his ministers a flame of fire.”

8But of the Son he says,

“Your throne, O God, is forever and ever,
the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom.
9You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness;
therefore God, your God, has anointed you
with the oil of gladness beyond your companions.”

10And,

“You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning,
and the heavens are the work of your hands;
11they will perish, but you remain;
they will all wear out like a garment,
12like a robe you will roll them up,
like a garment they will be changed.a
But you are the same,
and your years will have no end.”
—Hebrews 1

Pretty blatant acknowledgement of The Son as Deity and Creator!

Yet, you can't take out everything as it would be seen, so its just a part here a text there and soon you get a Bible devoid of His divinity if not Christ Himself..

Does it matter which version of the Bible you read?

Well-Known Member

an old small town kid

Well-Known Member

Sophia7's husband

Well-Known Member

loves Jesus the Christ! ✝️

Well-Known Member

Contributor

Contributor

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Contributor

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency