• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Proof that the ESV, NIV, NASB are Vatican Versions

brandplucked

Member
Site Supporter
Jul 9, 2004
769
17
✟4,973.00
Faith
Christian
And while you are at it, you might want to check out my response to James White's Dividing Line program

James White -Divide Line - Another King James Bible Believer

Question - Was James White lying when he said he believes the Bible IS the infallible words of God? I asked him where we can get a copy of this infallible Bible he professes to believe in and he dodged the question. He will NEVER tell you where you can actually SEE this infallible Bible he SAYS he believes in? Could James White be lying? Nah....No Way. Right?

One of James big topics that day was Colossians 2:9 and the word Godhead.

He guffawed and mocked and ridiculed the idea that Godhead is the correct word. Well, folks, James White was wrong and the KJB is right. Here is why



Godhead or Deity - Is James White Right?

Colossians 2:8-9

"Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, aftr the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. For in him dwelleth all the fulness of THE GODHEAD bodily."

James White, a well known King James Bible critic, ignorantly harangues against the use of the word Godhead in the KJB. In his book, The King James Only Controversy, when discussing Colossians 2:9 Mr. White says on page 204: "Yet, the KJV rendering of this verse is probably the least clear of almost all currently available translations. How does one explain what "Godhead" means? Who really uses this term any longer? And what about the fact that the KJV uses "godhead" in other places when it is translating a completely different Greek term?"

Then Mr. White has a chart which shows the NASB rendering of the three passages where the KJB has Godhead in all three. Here are the NASB renderings: Acts 17:29 the Divine Nature (Theios); Romans 1:20 divine nature (theiotes), and Colossians 2:9 Deity (theotes).

As for Mr. White's puzzlement about how one explains what Godhead means, he might try looking at any number of current English dictionaries. As for his question - "Who really uses this term any longer?" maybe our befuddled scholar might find some insight if he read the NIV introduction in the 1984 edition where it says on page xviii "Neither Hebrew, Aramaic nor Greek uses special pronouns for the persons of the Godhead." Or James might try a simple Google search, type in the word "Godhead", and violá, he will find the word used all over the place even in many present day religious articles.

Actually the word Godhead is much stronger and more accurate than the word "deity" found in the NASB, NIV and ESV. I have also heard radio preachers today who use the modern versions talking about the Godhead, little realizing that this word no longer appears in the bible versions they are now using.

GODHEAD

Merriam Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary 1967, " the nature of God especially as existing in three persons -- used with the".

The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000. 1. Divinity; godhood. 2. Godhead The Christian God, especially the Trinity.

The Random House Unabridged Dictionary 1997 -God•head

Pronunciation: (god'hed")
—noun
1.
a. the essential being of God; the Supreme Being.
b. the Holy Trinity of God the Father, Christ the Son, and the Holy Ghost.

The XXXIX Articles of the book of Common Prayer opens thus: “There is but one living and true God, everlasting, without body, parts or passions: of infinite power, wisdom and goodness, the Maker and Preserver of all things visible and invisible. And in the unity of the GODHEAD there be three Persons, of one substance, power and eternity: the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost.”

The Greek lexicons of both Trench and Thayer's also show Godhead as being one of the primary meanings of this Greek word used in Colossians 2:9. Scholars often disagree with each other; what one affirms another denies. But of the three words used, there are some who affirm that each of the Greek words used has the meaning of "godhead".

Concerning the first example of Acts 17:29 "the Godhead" KJB and many others, τὸ θεῖον εἶναι ὅμοιον. Bauer, Arndt and Gingrich Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament 1957 list this word on page 354 and reference Acts 17:29. They define it as: 1. of the godhead and everything that belongs to it.

Concerning the Greek word used in Romans 1:20 θειότης, on page 285 of Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon he tells us that this word means divinity or divine nature and is a synonym of θεότητος used in Colossians 2:9 which he defines as "absolute Godhead".

Concerning Colossians 2:9 τῆς θεότητος σωματικῶς Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words page 289 references Colossians 2:9 and says: "Paul is declaring that in the Son there dwells all the fulness of absolute Godhead; the apostle uses τῆς θεότητος to express this essential and personal Godhead of the Son." Then he references Trench's Synonyms. When we look at Trench Synonyms of the New Testament on pages 24-25 he says that τῆς θεότητος as found in Colossians 2:9 means exactly the same thing Vine told us - the essential and personal Godhead of the Son.

And this Greek New Testament site - New Testament Greek Gives the following quotes concerning Colossians 2:9:

Hippolytus Refutation of All Heresies Book X: that this is what has been declared, "in whom dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily."[12]


Irenaeus Against Heresies Book I: and further, "In Him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead; "[46]

Origen de Principiis Book II: And when it is said "above thy fellows," it is meant that the grace of the Spirit was not given to it as to the prophets, but that the essential fulness of the Word of God Himself was in it, according to the saying of the apostle, "In whom dwelt all the fulness of the Godhead bodily."[88]


The word Godhead implies the Three Persons of the Trinity, whereas the simple word Deity does not. There are many deities but only one Godhead. It is more than just coincidence that the KJB has the word Godhead three times in the New Testament.

As for Mr. White's charge that all three Greek words are "completely different", please note that all three have the base word Theos, which by itself means God. Not only does the KJB translate all three instances (Acts 17:29; Romans 1:20 and Colossians 2:9) of these related words as GODHEAD, but so also do Tyndale 1525, Miles Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible (Cranmer) of 1540, Matthew's Bible (John Rogers) of 1549, the Bishop's Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, John Wesley's 1755 translation, Webster's 1833 translation, Young's "literal" translation, the Amplified Bible 1987, the KJV 21st Century Version 1994, and the Third Millenium Version of 1998.

Mr. White complains about the translation of Godhead here in Colossians 2:9, yet the NKJV, which he recommends in his book as a reliable translation, also has Godhead in Colossians 2:9. Not only do all thirteen translations mentioned above have Godhead in Colossians 2:9, but so also do Whiston's Primitive N.T. 1745, John Wesley's translation 1755, Noyes N.T. 1869, Godbey N.T. 1902, Lamsa's 1933 translation of the Syriac Peshitta, the Revised Version 1885, American Standard Version 1901, Darby 1870, New English Bible 1970, Wycliffe 1395, Complete Apostle's Bible, Analytical Literal Translation, Anderson N.T., American Bible Union N.T., Worrell N.T., English Jubilee Bible 2000, Hebrew Names Version, the World English Bible, Douay-Rheims 1592, the Douay 1950, Amplified Bible 1987, The Twentieth Century N.T. 1904, Green's Modern KJV 2000, The New Berkeley Version in Modern English 1969, and Rotherham's Emphatic Bible 1902. That is a total of at least 37 English bible translations that disagree with Mr. White's "scholarly" opinions about what the word θεότητος means in Colossians 2:9.



Mr. White also shows his hypocrisy when he says the KJB translates three "completely" different words as Godhead. The NASB, for whom he used to work, has two very different words translated as deity - daimonion in Acts 17:18 and theotes in Colossians 2:9 - and another five very different words translated as Divine. In Acts 17:29 theios is translated as "divine nature", in Romans 1:20 theiotes is "divine nature", in Romans 11:4 kreematismos is translated as "divine response", in 2 Corinthians the Greek word theos is translated as "divinely", and in Hebrews 9:1 latreia is translated as "divine service".

The word Godhead in orthodox Christian theology clearly implies the Trinity. If anyone studies their Bible, you know that Christ was God manifest in the flesh (I Timothy 3:16 in the KJB, but not the NASB, ESV, RSV, NIV).

The Lord also said in John 14:10 and 20 "Believest thou not that I AM IN THE FATHER, AND THE FATHER IN ME?...but THE FATHER THAT DWELLETH IN ME, he doeth the works." And 14:20 - "At that day ye shall know that I AM IN MY FATHER, and ye in me, and I in you." The Lord Jesus bears witness to the same truth when He says in John 10:30 and 38 - "I and my Father are one." and "But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that THE FATHER IS IN ME, AND I IN HIM." and again in John 17:21 "That they all may be one; AS THOU, FATHER, ART IN ME, AND I IN THEE, that they also may be on in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me."

The Lord Jesus Christ was conceived of the Holy Ghost (Luke 1:35) and God anointed him with the Holy Ghost and with power (Acts 10:38). In Christ dwells all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

People like James White have no inspired Bible or sure words of God. He will tell you that he believes "The Bible is the infallible words of God", but if you ask him to show you a copy of this infallible Bible he claims to believe in, he will never tell you. I know; I have tried. Men like James White set up their own minds as being the final authority and correct every bible version out there. Mr. White often corrects his own NASB and thinks it too has errors. Men like Mr. White don't believe any translation can be the inspired words of God, and since the "originals" no longer exist, they have no inspired Bible and resent the fact that many of us believe we do. They want to be the Final Authority and have you come to them to find out what God really said. It is a big ego trip, easy to get into and very hard to get out of. I feel sorry for all the Christians who have been robbed of the true Holy Bible by unbelieving modern scholars like "Dr" James White.

Will Kinney
 
Upvote 0

Keachian

On Sabbatical
Feb 3, 2010
7,096
331
36
Horse-lie-down
Visit site
✟31,352.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
I feel sorry for all the Christians who have been robbed of the true Holy Bible by unbelieving modern scholars like "Dr" James White.

I feel sorry for the Christians who have let a Government dictate to them what a proper translation should be.
 
Upvote 0

Keachian

On Sabbatical
Feb 3, 2010
7,096
331
36
Horse-lie-down
Visit site
✟31,352.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Using Anglicanism to prove KJV-Oism has got to be among the most foolish and irresponsible tactics ever.

I'm personally offended. I know for a fact what my church teaches and it isn't this tripe.

I didn't notice his use of Article I, and yes I agree it's silly, I guess he still doesn't understand that his understanding of the word godhead is limited.
 
Upvote 0

PaladinValer

Traditional Orthodox Anglican
Apr 7, 2004
23,587
1,245
44
Myrtle Beach, SC
✟30,305.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
I didn't notice his use of Article I, and yes I agree it's silly, I guess he still doesn't understand that his understanding of the word godhead is limited.

It isn't just Article I; it is the fact that Anglicanism by its historic beliefs and practices is completely against his'. Everything from Real Presence of Christ in Holy Communion to episcopacy to sacramentalism to amillennialism...and yes, also the fact that we've never had issue with the term "Deity"...

The KJV is MY CHURCH'S TRANSLATION. Who better than Anglicans to know how to read it? Asked for by Puritans that never got they wanted because Anglicanism taught them wrong...how can anyone argue that it teaches things that Puritans alone or even both Anglicans and Puritans found wrong? There is absolutely no rational excuse!

The whole thing is nothing more than a mind-numbing conspiracy theory based on lies, psuedohistory, and now, I see an abuse of my own church!

Funny thing is, it drives the nail in KJV-Oism's coffin even more tightly by bringing up my church. Truly, a pitiable thing. After righteous anger, there is no other logical feeling to offer. Just pity. It really is a shame to see such a waste.

It really gives me more reason to thank God that such psuedointellectualism/anti-intellectualism is departing from the world. For those last conspiracy theorists who are left of this silliness, there can only be pity. May God be merciful!
 
Upvote 0

brandplucked

Member
Site Supporter
Jul 9, 2004
769
17
✟4,973.00
Faith
Christian
I feel sorry for the Christians who have let a Government dictate to them what a proper translation should be.


Hi prog. This is about as pathetic an argument against the King James Bible and in favor of your unbelief that ANY Bible in ANY language is the infallible words of God. There is no government dictating that I or any other KJB believer must use it or believe it. This is just plain silly.

It is a fact that you and most Christians today do NOT believe that the Bible (ANY Bible in ANY language) is the infallible words of God. All you have to do to prove me wrong on this is to simply SHOW us this infallible Bible you seem to want us to think you actually believe in. But you will never do that.

"The Bible is NOT the inspired and inerrant words of God."

The Bible NOT inspired - Another King James Bible Believer

The following testimonies about the character of Evangelicalism today were made by key Evangelical leaders. The irony is that these same men are part of the problem they lament. Each of these men has been guilty of endorsing modern bible versions.

"MORE AND MORE ORGANIZATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS HISTORICALLY COMMITTED TO AN INFALLIBLE SCRIPTURE HAVE BEEN EMBRACING AND PROPAGATING THE VIEW THAT THE BIBLE HAS ERRORS IN IT. This movement away from the historic standpoint has been most noticeable among those often labeled neo-evangelicals. This change of position with respect to the infallibility of the Bible is widespread and has occurred in evangelical denominations, Christian colleges, theological seminaries, publishing houses, and learned societies" (Harold Lindsell, former vice-president and professor Fuller Theological Seminary and Editor Emeritus of Christianity Today, The Battle for the Bible, 1976, p. 20).

"WITHIN EVANGELICALISM THERE ARE A GROWING NUMBER WHO ARE MODIFYING THEIR VIEWS ON THE INERRANCY OF THE BIBLE SO THAT THE FULL AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE IS COMPLETELY UNDERCUT. But is happening in very subtle ways. Like the snow lying side-by-side on the ridge, the new views on biblical authority often seem at first glance not to be very far from what evangelicals, until just recently, have always believed. But also, like the snow lying side-by-side on the ridge, the new views when followed consistently end up a thousand miles apart. What may seem like a minor difference at first, in the end makes all the difference in the world ... compromising the full authority of Scripture eventually affects what it means to be a Christian theologically and how we live in the full spectrum of human life" (Francis Schaeffer, The Great Evangelical Disaster, 1983, p. 44).

"...every textual critic knows that this similarity of text indicates, rather, that we have made little progress in textual theory since Westcott-Hort; that WE SIMPLY DO NOT KNOW HOW TO MAKE A DEFINITIVE DETERMINATION AS TO WHAT THE BEST TEXT IS; that we do not have a clear picture of the transmission and alteration of the text in the first few centuries; and, accordingly, that the Westcott-Hort kind of text has maintained its dominant position largely by default" (Eldon Epp, "The Twentieth-Century Interlude in NT Textual Criticism," Studies in the Theory and Method of New Testament Textual Criticism, p. 87).

George Barna, president of Barna Research Group, reported that a study exploring the religious beliefs of the 12 largest denominations in America highlights the downward theological drift that has taken place in Christian churches in recent years. The study found that an alarmingly high number of church members have beliefs that fall far short of orthodox Christianity. ONLY 41 PERCENT OF ALL ADULTS SURVEYED BELIEVED IN THE TOTAL ACCURACY OF THE BIBLE. Only 40 percent believed Christ was sinless, and only 27 percent believed Satan to be real.

The Barna Research Group reported in 1996 that among American adults generally: 58% believe that the Bible is "totally accurate in all its teachings"; 45% believe that the Bible is "absolutely accurate and everything in it can be taken literally."

"Support dropped between that poll and another taken in 2001. Barna reported in 2001 that: 41% of adults strongly agrees that the Bible is totally accurate in all that it teaches."

"Seminary students, future pastors and leaders in the church, show very little support for the inerrancy of the Bible position. What does that foretell about the future of the church? Undoubtedly, just as the poll results show in the 1996 - 2001 time frame, THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE BELIEVING THE BIBLE IS INERRANT WILL DROP." (end of statements by the Barna Research Group)

Pastor Michael Youseff's Message on His "Leading The Way" program. The title of todays message was "The Bible, The World's Most Relevant Book - Part 2. In his message he gave statistics of a poll that was conducted. Here is what the poll revealed:

85% of students at America's largest Evangelical Seminary don't believe in the inerrancy of Scripture.

74% of the Clergy in America no longer believe in the inerrancy of Scripture.

And YOU yourself are among this growing number of professing Christians who do NOT believe in the infallibility of Scripture. Prove me wrong, if you can.

"He that hath ears to hear, let him hear." Luke 8:8
 
Upvote 0

Keachian

On Sabbatical
Feb 3, 2010
7,096
331
36
Horse-lie-down
Visit site
✟31,352.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Hi prog. This is about as pathetic an argument against the King James Bible and in favor of your unbelief that ANY Bible in ANY language is the infallible words of God. There is no government dictating that I or any other KJB believer must use it or believe it. This is just plain silly.

You use a Bible commissioned by a King to quell what he believed were anti-monarchy sentiments found in the true English standard of his day.

It is a fact that you and most Christians today do NOT believe that the Bible (ANY Bible in ANY language) is the infallible words of God. All you have to do to prove me wrong on this is to simply SHOW us this infallible Bible you seem to want us to think you actually believe in. But you will never do that.

Sorry, you must have me mistaken for someone else, I've said so before and I will say so again the Bible as handed down in Hebrew, Aramaic and Koine Greek (with some study of the early translation into other languages). However because of variation in manuscripts it is necessary that if one wants to view the whole of the inerrant word of God one need have a veritable Library, I have pointed you to where I would point people who want a carnal object, namely the Gottingen LXX, the Stuttgart Vulgate, I would also point you to the two current projects the Biblia Hebraica Quinta and the Editio Critica Maior. However I have also discussed pneumatology in regards to the reading of Scripture to you, especially to point out that no matter how much the natural man wishes to read Scripture it will no more draw him to Christ than anything else, it is the Holy Spirit dwelling within the believer that makes the Scripture come to be the active words of God, sharper than any two edged sword cutting between bone and marrow.
 
Upvote 0

brandplucked

Member
Site Supporter
Jul 9, 2004
769
17
✟4,973.00
Faith
Christian
You use a Bible commissioned by a King to quell what he believed were anti-monarchy sentiments found in the true English standard of his day.



Sorry, you must have me mistaken for someone else, I've said so before and I will say so again the Bible as handed down in Hebrew, Aramaic and Koine Greek (with some study of the early translation into other languages). However because of variation in manuscripts it is necessary that if one wants to view the whole of the inerrant word of God one need have a veritable Library, I have pointed you to where I would point people who want a carnal object, namely the Gottingen LXX, the Stuttgart Vulgate, I would also point you to the two current projects the Biblia Hebraica Quinta and the Editio Critica Maior. However I have also discussed pneumatology in regards to the reading of Scripture to you, especially to point out that no matter how much the natural man wishes to read Scripture it will no more draw him to Christ than anything else, it is the Holy Spirit dwelling within the believer that makes the Scripture come to be the active words of God, sharper than any two edged sword cutting between bone and marrow.

So, prog, do you drive all these manuscripts, versions, translations, parchments etc. around in a dump truck and when someone asks you what does such and such a verse say, you start rummaging through all that mess in order to try to give them an answer?

Which one of these readings is your "infallible words of God"? Just pick one example if you like. Take your time. I know you have a LOT of material to go through before you can find out for sure.

Most Evangelical Christians today do not believe that any Bible in any language IS the inerrant words of God. In spite of the lame, signifying nothing, recent Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, they did get one thing right. It’s found in Article XII - “We deny that Biblical infallibility and inerrancy are limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes, exclusive of assertions in the fields of history and science.” Every true Bible believer should agree with this statement. IF the Bible is not 100% historically true, then at what point does God start to tell us the truth? If we cannot trust God's Book when it comes to specific numbers and names when it comes to past history, then how can we be sure He got the other parts right?


The following short list is just a sampling of the divergent and confusing readings found among the contradictory modern bible versions. There are numerous other examples, but these are just a few to make you aware of what is going on here with "the late$t in $cholar$hip Finding$".

Among these “historic details” are whether Jeremiah 27:1 reads Jehoiakim (Hebrew texts, RV, ASV, NKJV, KJB, ISV, Douay-Rheims, St. Joseph New American Bible 1970) or Zedekiah (RSV, NIV, NASB, ESV, NET, Holman, Catholic New Jerusalem 1985)

1 Samuel 13:1 Here we read: “Saul reigned ONE year; and when he had reigned TWO years over Israel, Saul chose him three thousand men of Israel.” reading - ONE/TWO years (NKJV, KJB, Geneva, Judaica Press Tanach, Orthodox Jewish Bible), or 40/32 (NASB 1972-77) or 30/42 (NASB 1995, NIV), OR 30 years/ 40 years (NET) or _____years and______and two years (RSV, NRSV, ESV 2001 edition, St. Joseph New American Bible 1970, Catholic New Jerusalem 1985), or "was 40 years old...and when he had reigned 2 years" (Amplified bible 1987) or "____years old and reigned 2 years" (Complete Jewish bible, Knox bible) or "was 30 years old...ruled for 42 years" (ISV, Common English Bible) or “32 years old...reigned for 22 years” in the 1989 Revised English Bible, or even "was 50 years old and reigned 22 years." in the New English Bible of 1970!

But wait. There's even more. The ESV 2001 edition had "Saul was________years old when he began to reign, and he reigned____and two years over Israel." But now the 2011 edition of the ESV has come out (I have a hard copy right here in front of me) and it now has the perhaps even more ridiculous reading of "Saul LIVED FOR ONE YEAR AND THEN BECAME KING, and when he had reigned FOR TWO YEARS over Israel, Saul chose 3000 men of Israel...". Think about it. "Saul lived for one year and then became king". They just get loopier and loopier, don't they?

whether 2 Samuel 21:8 reads Michal (Hebrew texts, KJB, NKJV, RV, ASV, Douay-Rheims) or Merab (RSV, NIV, NASB, ESV, NET, Holman, ISV, St. Joseph NAB, Catholic New Jerusalem)

or 70 (NASB, NKJV, RV, ASV, RSV, NRSV, Holman, ISV, KJB) being sent out by the Lord Jesus in Luke 10:1 and 17 or 72 (NIV, ESV, NET, St. Joseph NAB, Catholic New Jerusalem)

or in Matthew 18:22 does the Lord say to forgive your brother not “until 7 times, but unto 70 times 7 times” (= 490 times - KJB, RV, ASV, NASB, NKJV, RSV, ESV, ISV, Douay-Rheims, St. Joseph NAB, ALL Greek texts) or 77 times (NRSV, NIV, Catholic New Jerusalem)

or the 7th day in Judges 14:15 (KJB, NKJV, RV, ASV, Douay-Rheims) or the 4th day (RSV, ESV, NASB, NIV, NET, St. Joseph NAB, Catholic New Jerusalem) or "the NEXT day" ISV (they just made this up!)

Or Hannah taking young Samuel to the house of the LORD with THREE bullocks in 1 Samuel 1:24 (KJB, Hebrew texts, RV, ASV, JPS 1917, NKJV, Youngs, NET, Douay-Rheims) or “A THREE YEAR OLD BULL: (LXX, Syriac RSV, ESV, NIV, NASB, ISV, Holman, St. Joseph NAB, Catholic New Jerusalem)

or God smiting 50,070 men in 1 Samuel 6:19 (KJB, RV, ASV, NASB, NET, ISV, Douay-Rheims) or 70 men slain (RSV, NIV, NRSV, ESV, St. Joseph NAB, Catholic New Jerusalem), or “70 men- 50 chief men” (Young’s), or “70 MEN OUT OF 50,000 Holman Standard

or there being 30,000 chariots in 1 Samuel 13:5 (KJB, NKJV, RV, ASV, NASB, RSV, NRSV, ESV, ISV, Douay-Rheims) or only 3000 (NIV, NET, Holman, St. Joseph NAB, Catholic New Jerusalem)

2 Samuel 15:7 “forty years” (KJB, Hebrew, Geneva, NKJV, NASB, RV, Douay-Rheims) OR “four years” (NIV, RSV, ESV, NET, St. Joseph NAB, Catholic New Jerusalem). The ISV ADDS words to the Hebrew text to make it say what they think it means, saying: "And so it was that forty years after Israel had demanded a king, Absalom asked the king..."

or whether both 2 Samuel 23:18 and 1 Chronicles 11:20 read “chief of the THREE” (KJB, Hebrew texts, RV, ASV, NKJV, NRSV, Holman, NIV, NET, Holman, NET, Douay-Rheims) or THIRTY from the Syriac (NASB, RSV, ESV, St. Joseph NAB, Catholic New Jerusalem) The ISV completely omits any number and just makes up their own text saying: "in charge of the platoons"

or 2 Samuel 24:13 reading SEVEN years (KJB, Hebrew, ASV, NASB, NKJV, NET, ISV, Douay-Rheims) or THREE years (LXX, NIV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, Holman, St. Joseph NAB, Catholic New Jerusalem)

or whether 1 Kings 4:26 reads 40,000 stalls of horses (Hebrew, KJB, RV, ASV, NASB, ESV, NKJV, ISV, Douay-Rheims) or 4,000 stalls (NIV, NET, St. Joseph NAB, Catholic New Jerusalem)

or whether 1 Kings 5:11 reads 20 measures of pure oil (Hebrew texts, Geneva, KJB, ASV, RV, NASB, NRSV, ISV, Douay-Rheims) or 20,000 (RSV, NIV, ESV, NET, LXX and Syriac, St. Joseph NAB, Catholic New Jerusalem)

or in 2 Chronicles 31:16 we read "males from THREE years old" (Hebrew texts, KJB, Geneva Bible, Wycliffe, LXX, Syriac, RV, ASV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, NIV, NKJV, Holman, NET, Douay-Rheims) or "males from THIRTY years old" (NASB - ft. Hebrew “three”, ISV -"every male 30 years old and older", St. Joseph NAB, Catholic New Jerusalem)

or where 2 Chronicles 36:9 reads that Jehoiachin was 8 years old when he began to reign (Hebrew texts, KJB, NASB, NKJV, RV, ASV, KJB, RSV, NRSV, ESV 2001 edition, ISV, Douay-Rheims) or he was 18 years old (NIV, Holman, NET, ESV 2007 edition!!! and once again the Catholic St. Joseph NAB and the New Jerusalem)

or that when God raised the Lord Jesus from the dead it is stated in Acts 13:33 “this day have I begotten thee” (KJB, NASB, NKJV, RV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, Douay-Rheims, St. Joseph NAB) or “today I have become your Father” (NIV, Holman, NET, ISV, Catholic New Jerusalem).

If you go back and read through this list of just some of the numerous very real differences that exist among these Bible of the Month Club versions, ask yourself which (if any) are the 100% historically true words of God. IF "the Bible" is not 100% historically true in the events it narrates, then when does God start to tell us the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
 
Upvote 0

brandplucked

Member
Site Supporter
Jul 9, 2004
769
17
✟4,973.00
Faith
Christian
of course then we get into this sort of realm:

The Newly Published Nestle Aland 28th Edition Greek New Testament and Textual Criticism - YouTube

I actually have in my possession a NA28


Yes, I have one too. You guys have no fixed text and no absolute certainty about much of anything. Everything is open to change, doubt and uncertainty. Men like James White will SAY they believe the Bible IS the infallible words of God, but when asked where we can get a copy of this infallible word they profess to believe in, they either dodge the question and will NOT answer it, or they refer us to a dump truck full of multiple and conflicting manuscripts in archaic and impossible ancient languages.

James White - the Protestant Pope of the new Vatican Versions

James White P.Pope VV - Another King James Bible Believer

Enjoy.;)
 
Upvote 0

Keachian

On Sabbatical
Feb 3, 2010
7,096
331
36
Horse-lie-down
Visit site
✟31,352.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
So, prog, do you drive all these manuscripts, versions, translations, parchments etc. around in a dump truck
I have them on my tablet to be quite honest.

when someone asks you what does such and such a verse say, you start rummaging through all that mess in order to try to give them an answer?
I generally use the ESV, for brevity's sake, there isn't really any need to belabor these things.

Which one of these readings is your "infallible words of God"? Just pick one example if you like. Take your time. I know you have a LOT of material to go through before you can find out for sure.

I looked through your list, it's majoring in minors, show me one variant which changes the metanarrative of God's faithfulness to his people throughout time. You have decided to focus on the trees and can't see the forest.

Most Evangelical Christians today do not believe that any Bible in any language IS the inerrant words of God. In spite of the lame, signifying nothing, recent Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, they did get one thing right. It’s found in Article XII - “We deny that Biblical infallibility and inerrancy are limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes, exclusive of assertions in the fields of history and science.” Every true Bible believer should agree with this statement. IF the Bible is not 100% historically true, then at what point does God start to tell us the truth?
The CSBI is irrelevant as I don't hold to it. If you are going to complain about the standards of statements while complaining about my view of Scripture please limit your tirades to those I actually accept, such as the 2nd London Baptist Confession, in which I might point you to Chapter 1, paragraph 7:
All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all; yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed and observed for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of ordinary means, may attain to a sufficient understanding of them.

If we cannot trust God's Book when it comes to specific numbers and names when it comes to past history, then how can we be sure He got the other parts right?
Again I refer you to C1P7.
 
Upvote 0

Keachian

On Sabbatical
Feb 3, 2010
7,096
331
36
Horse-lie-down
Visit site
✟31,352.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Yes, I have one too. You guys have no fixed text and no absolute certainty about much of anything.
I have the certainty that Christ is my saviour, that's enough for me.

archaic and impossible ancient languages.
You mean like the Early Modern English of the KJV?

As Dr White points out in the video, the KJVO reaction to the discovery of new manuscripts, to the study of said new manuscripts is to disregard them because God has already given what we in an anglocentric-dull minded area want, which is a translation comissioned to bolster the government religion and sovereignty of England, which most of the KJVO that I have encountered (being fiercly US-Patriotic and Congregationalist in polity) should absolutely balk at. And yet they have the gall to call the modern multidenominational translations Vatican corruptions.
 
Upvote 0

Dylan Michael

Senior Veteran
Jul 15, 2010
3,678
203
Central Florida
✟33,092.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
The fact that my own Anglican Church, the church whose auspices the KJV was written under, finds the whole thing absurd and fundamentally disagrees with the theology that the KJV-Os arrive at should make all immediately suspect.

I find it absolutely hilarious that the on many of the most KJVO websites you can find pages that call Anglicans "straight out of the pits of hell."
 
Upvote 0

PaladinValer

Traditional Orthodox Anglican
Apr 7, 2004
23,587
1,245
44
Myrtle Beach, SC
✟30,305.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
I find it absolutely hilarious that the on many of the most KJVO websites you can find pages that call Anglicans "straight out of the pits of hell."

See? You Vatican Catholics aren't the only ones who face abuse. ;)

KJV-O is little more than conspiracy theory, psuedohistory, and idolatry towards the Blessed Canon.
 
Upvote 0

Dylan Michael

Senior Veteran
Jul 15, 2010
3,678
203
Central Florida
✟33,092.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
See? You Vatican Catholics aren't the only ones who face abuse. ;)

KJV-O is little more than conspiracy theory, psuedohistory, and idolatry towards the Blessed Canon.

We have to share the love sometimes. ;)
 
Upvote 0

PrincetonGuy

Veteran
Feb 19, 2005
4,905
2,283
U.S.A.
✟171,698.00
Faith
Baptist
Undeniable Proof the ESV, NIV, NASB, Holman Standard, NET etc. are the new "Vatican Versions"
On September 30, 1943, Pope Pius XII issued his Encyclical Divino Affante Spiritu asking that new translations of the Bible be made from the original languages rather than from Jerome’s Latin Vulgate and asking Roman Catholic scholars to study the Bible in the original languages and to share their research with the world. One of the results of this encyclical was the 1,370-page commentary of the Gospel According to John by Roman Catholic scholar Raymond E. Brown. The first volume was published in 1966, and the second of the two volumes in 1970. This commentary includes very extensive bibliographies—and most of the works in the bibliographies were written or edited by Protestant Biblical scholars. It was followed in 1981 and 1985 by the publication of a 1,701-page commentary on the Greek text of the Gospel According to Luke by Roman Catholic scholar Joseph A. Fitzmyer. As was the case with the commentary by Brown, this commentary includes very extensive bibliographies—and most of the works in the bibliographies were written or edited by Protestant Biblical scholars.

The Greek text of the Gospel According to John and the Greek text of the Gospel According to Luke used in these commentaries was nearly exclusively the work of Protestant scholars. The Greek lexicons and Greek grammars used were also nearly exclusively the work of Protestant scholars. Why? Because the Roman Catholic Church, as recognized by Pope Pius XII, has not yet produced scholars capable of doing such work. Therefore, your claim that the ESV, NIV, NASB, Holman Standard, NET Bible, etc. are new “Vatican Versions” is nothing but malicious, libelous fiction!

An incontrovertible fact is that no one can cite even a single instance in any Protestant translation of the Bible in which the underlying Greek text reflects a Roman Catholic rather than Protestant preference!
 
Upvote 0

PrincetonGuy

Veteran
Feb 19, 2005
4,905
2,283
U.S.A.
✟171,698.00
Faith
Baptist
I have a copy of the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece 27th edition right here in front of me. It is the same Greek text as the UBS (United Bible Society) 4th edition. These are the Greek readings and texts that are followed by such modern versions as the ESV, NIV, NASB, Holman Standard AND the new Catholic versions like the St. Joseph New American Bible 1970 and the New Jerusalem bible 1985.


If you have a copy of the Nestle-Aland 27th edition, open the book and read what they tell us in their own words on page 45 of the Introduction. Here these critical Greek text editors tell us about how the Greek New Testament (GNT, now known as the UBS) and the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece grew together and shared the same basic text.

In the last paragraph on page 45 we read these words: "The text shared by these two editions was adopted internationally by Bible Societies, and following an agreement between the Vatican and the United Bible Societies it has served as the basis for new translations and for revisions made under their supervision. This marks a significant step with regard to interconfessional relationships. It should naturally be understood that this text is a working text: it is not to be considered as definitive, but as a stimulus to further efforts toward defining and verifying the text of the New Testament."

There it is folks, in their own words. They openly admit that this text is the result of an agreement between the Vatican and the UBS and that the text itself is not "definitive" - it can change, as it already has and will do so in the future, and is not the infallible words of God but merely "a stimulus to further efforts".

I have right here on my desk both of these two Greek texts, and your interpretation of the paragraph on page 45 is incorrect. The writer of the introduction neither says nor implies that the Greek text is the result of an agreement between the Vatican and the UBS—and, of course, it was not! The agreement was that the Greek text—produced by Protestant scholars (see the paragraph beginning on page 44 and continuing onto page 45—serve as “the basis for new translations and for revisions made under their supervision.” Moreover, their text “is not to be considered as definitive, but as a stimulus to further efforts toward defining and verifying the text of the New Testament.
 
Upvote 0

brandplucked

Member
Site Supporter
Jul 9, 2004
769
17
✟4,973.00
Faith
Christian
Princeton guy, Can you read plain English? It is right there in the Nestle-Aland 27th edition. I did not make this stuff up.


In the last paragraph on page 45 we read these words: "The text shared by these two editions was adopted internationally by Bible Societies, and following an agreement between the Vatican and the United Bible Societies it has served as the basis for new translations and for revisions made under their supervision. This marks a significant step with regard to interconfessional relationships. It should naturally be understood that this text is a working text: it is not to be considered as definitive, but as a stimulus to further efforts toward defining and verifying the text of the New Testament."

There it is folks, in their own words. They openly admit that this text is the result of an agreement between the Vatican and the UBS and that the text itself is not "definitive" - it can change, as it already has and will do so in the future, and is not the infallible words of God but merely "a stimulus to further efforts".

If you had actually bothered to READ the article you would also see this -


Guess why the UBS (United Bible Society) Greek texts are the basis for all these new versions? It's because Catholics and Evangelicals were united to produce this text. One of the 5 chief editors was the New Age Catholic Cardinal Carlos Martini, who believed god was in all men and in all religions. Just open a copy of the UBS New Testament Greek and turn to the first page. There you will see a list of the 5 chief editors who put this abomination together. The 4th name on the list, right before the inerrancy denying Bruce Metzger, is Carlo M. Martini. In his book "In the Thick of His Ministry" the Jesuit Cardinal Martini writes: “The deification which is the aim of all religious life takes place. During a recent trip to India I was struck by the yearning for the divine that pervades the whole of Hindu culture. It gives rise to extraordinary religious forms and extremely meaningful prayers. I wondered: What is authentic in this longing to fuse with the divine dominating the spirituality of hundreds of millions of human beings, so that they bear hardship, privation, exhausting pilgrimages, in search of this ecstasy?" (In The Thick Of His Ministry, Carlo M. Martini, page 42.) Jesuit Cardinal Martini served on the editorial committee for the United Bible Societies' 2nd, 3rd and 4th editions. These are the "bibles" most modern Christians are using today when they pick up the ESV, NIV, NASB, NET or modern Catholic "bibles".

AND you would have seen this -

This comes from The Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity site. (PCPCU) Here is their site -
THE PONTIFICAL COUNCIL FOR PROMOTING CHRISTIAN UNITY
Here is their own Vatican statement regarding translations - Collaboration for the Diffusion of the Bible
Following the responsibility undertaken by the then Secretariat for the preparation of the dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, the PCPCU was entrusted with promoting ecumenical collaboration for the translation and diffusion of Holy Scripture (Dei Verbum, n. 22). In this context, it encouraged the formation of the Catholic Biblical Federation, with which it is in close contact. Together with the United Bible Societies it published the Guidelines for Interconfessional Cooperation in Translating the Bible (1968; new revised edition 1987).



Here in my study I have a copy of the 1970 St. Joseph New American Bible translated by Members of the Catholic Biblical Association of America. This Catholic bible version says on page 44 of the Introduction : "In general, Nestle’s-Aland’s Novum Testamentum Graece (25th edition, 1963) was followed. Additional help was derived from The Greek New Testament (editors Aland, Black, Metzger, Wikgren) produced for the use of translators by the United Bible Societies in 1966.” - The St. Joseph New American Bible, Catholic Book Publishing Co. New York.

These are the documented facts and anybody can look them up for themselves.


"He that hath ears to hear, let him hear." Luke 8:8


Will Kinney
 
Upvote 0

PrincetonGuy

Veteran
Feb 19, 2005
4,905
2,283
U.S.A.
✟171,698.00
Faith
Baptist
Princeton guy, Can you read plain English? It is right there in the Nestle-Aland 27th edition. I did not make this stuff up.


In the last paragraph on page 45 we read these words: "The text shared by these two editions was adopted internationally by Bible Societies, and following an agreement between the Vatican and the United Bible Societies it has served as the basis for new translations and for revisions made under their supervision. This marks a significant step with regard to interconfessional relationships. It should naturally be understood that this text is a working text: it is not to be considered as definitive, but as a stimulus to further efforts toward defining and verifying the text of the New Testament."

There it is folks, in their own words. They openly admit that this text is the result of an agreement between the Vatican and the UBS and that the text itself is not "definitive" - it can change, as it already has and will do so in the future, and is not the infallible words of God but merely "a stimulus to further efforts".
The writer of the introduction neither says nor implies that the Greek text is the result of an agreement between the Vatican and the UBS—and, of course, it was not! The agreement was that the Greek text—produced by Protestant scholars (with the help of a Jesuit scholar)—would serve as “the basis for new translations and for revisions made under their supervision.” Your supposition that any known Greek text of the New Testament is “the infallible words of God” has no basis of fact.

Princeton guy, Can you read plain English? It is right there in the Nestle-Aland 27th edition. I did not make this stuff up.
If you had actually bothered to READ the article you would also see this –
I have in my study numerous volumes and articles written by people involved in the KJO movement.


Princeton guy, Can you read plain English? It is right there in the Nestle-Aland 27th edition. I did not make this stuff up.
Guess why the UBS (United Bible Society) Greek texts are the basis for all these new versions? It's because Catholics and Evangelicals were united to produce this text. One of the 5 chief editors was the New Age Catholic Cardinal Carlos Martini….
Yes, Cardinal Carlo Martini was (he died almost a year ago) a Jesuit Roman Catholic. He was a scholar who specialized in textual criticism and was extremely critical of the Romans Catholic Church. A few days before his death, he accused the Roman Catholic Church of being 200 years out of date! However, as you have correctly written, he was the only Roman Catholic that served as one of the chief editors of the 27th edition of the Novum Testamentum Graece and of the 4th edition of the UBS Greek Text. The other four were Protestants. Moreover, it is an incontrovertible fact that no one can cite even a single instance in any Protestant translation of the Bible in which the underlying Greek text reflects a Roman Catholic rather than Protestant preference!

Furthermore, these two Greek texts are the basis for most contemporary translations of the Greek New Testament because of the quality of the scholarship of the editors. The theological persuasion of the editors has been, as it should be, irrelevant in making that decision.

Here in my study I have a copy of the 1970 St. Joseph New American Bible translated by Members of the Catholic Biblical Association of America. This Catholic bible version says on page 44 of the Introduction : "In general, Nestle’s-Aland’s Novum Testamentum Graece (25th edition, 1963) was followed. Additional help was derived from The Greek New Testament (editors Aland, Black, Metzger, Wikgren) produced for the use of translators by the United Bible Societies in 1966.” - The St. Joseph New American Bible, Catholic Book Publishing Co. New York.

These are the documented facts and anybody can look them up for themselves.
I have in my study the St. Joseph edition of the New American Bible translated by Members of the Catholic Biblical Association of America, but it is the 1970 edition with the second edition of the New Testament. I also have the first edition of the New Testament in an older copy of the New American Bible from a different publisher. Your quote is found in the Preface to the New American Bible, First Edition of the New Testament. It agrees with what I wrote in my first post in this thread—the Roman Catholic Church, as recognized by Pope Pius XII, has not yet produced scholars capable of doing such work without the help of Protestants. The “Wikgren” mentioned in the quote was Allen Wikgren, a now deceased Baptist scholar educated at the University of Chicago.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

PrincetonGuy

Veteran
Feb 19, 2005
4,905
2,283
U.S.A.
✟171,698.00
Faith
Baptist
This comes from The Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity site. (PCPCU) Here is their site -
THE PONTIFICAL COUNCIL FOR PROMOTING CHRISTIAN UNITY
Here is their own Vatican statement regarding translations - Collaboration for the Diffusion of the Bible
Following the responsibility undertaken by the then Secretariat for the preparation of the dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, the PCPCU was entrusted with promoting ecumenical collaboration for the translation and diffusion of Holy Scripture (Dei Verbum, n. 22). In this context, it encouraged the formation of the Catholic Biblical Federation, with which it is in close contact. Together with the United Bible Societies it published the Guidelines for Interconfessional Cooperation in Translating the Bible (1968; new revised edition 1987).

The Roman Catholic Church has, at the very highest level, openly recognized the fact that when Roman Catholics and Protestants work together, the faithfulness of our Bibles to the inspired word of God in the original languages is markedly improved. This milestone in Christ’s church should bring joy and gladness to the hearts of all of His faithful.
 
Upvote 0