Which translation do you use and why?

[AVBunyan]

Is it OK for a Christian or denomination to attack the term Theotokos and hence the Divinity of Christ ?

It is not just the Bible that is the word of God.

Not sure what Theotokos means but at first glance I would say no.

Now, Oblio you still have not answered my question - the issue is all the versions attacking the deity of Christ - is this OK?

Should saints support versions that attack the deity of our Lord? Yes or no?

God bless

 

[AVBunyan]

KJV makes a subtle omission in

Psa 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.

Ps 50 (51) is one of the most important penitential prayers in the Church, and the KJV, using the inferior Masoretic text omits the plural in sins which is crucial to our understanding of the nature of sin and our fall from communion with God and subsequent death. Is the KJV the Word of God ?

Sin is right here - the issue being discussed is the sin principle not the issue of sins. See Romans 5 on the discussion of the sin principle.

This is where we differ fundamentaly Oblio - I look to the AV as my final authority. Your authority appears to be Hebrew manuscripts.
Which ones by the way? I understand there are many? How do you even know they match the originals. Very confusing Oblio.

My life is simple - one book - one authority.

KJV is right - always has been and always will be.

God bless

 

[SumTinWong]

KJV is right - always has been and always will be.

God bless

I don't know why more people out there that are KJ only are not trying to convert everyone to the English language so that they to can have the "right" book. SIGH...

 

[TSIBHOD]

Sin is right here - the issue being discussed is the sin principle not the issue of sins. See Romans 5 on the discussion of the sin principle.

This is where we differ fundamentaly Oblio - I look to the AV as my final authority. Your authority appears to be Hebrew manuscripts.
Which ones by the way? I understand there are many? How do you even know they match the originals. Very confusing Oblio.

My life is simple - one book - one authority.

KJV is right - always has been and always will be.

God bless

My outlook is even simpler: I am right - always have been and always will be.

"KJV is always right." Why does this necessitate the conclusion that other versions must be wrong. When they use different wording, most of the time it is just a different way of saying the same thing. And sometimes, they translate more correctly than the KJV. You, of course, say that when they differ, the KJV is better. But says who? Is that true just because you say so?

The new versions don't undermine Christ's divinity, since people who use them have no problem believing that Christ is God while believing their ESVs and NASBs and so forth.

 

[Philip]

I look to the AV as my final authority.

I prefer God and His Church on earth.

Your authority appears to be Hebrew manuscripts.

I prefer the Greek text over the Hebrew.

Which ones by the way? I understand there are many? How do you even know they match the originals. Very confusing

Not that confusing. The Greek OT texts were preserved by the same people who preserved the Greek NT texts your KJV is based on.

My life is simple - one book - one authority.

Mine's pretty simple too. One God. One Faith. One Church.

KJV is right - always has been and always will be.

Wouldn't 'KJV is right - since AD1611' be a more credible claim?

 

[JohnJones]

The manuscripts used by modern versions were created during the Arian occupation of Alexandria when Athanasius was exiled due to their connections with the state. Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, those two Arian Alexandrian manuscripts disagree with each other in over 2000 places in the synoptic gospels alone because they were written by two different Arian schools during this time. After Athanasius returned, the Arian Alexandrian text-type disappeared for 1500 years! Sinaiticus and Vaticanus were relegated to the obscure bookshelves of corrupt monks, and no one made copies of them! Alexandria went back to the Antiochan text, the Received Text, and everyone who read Greek stayed with that text till the 1840s.

Mmm, not really the kind of argument I'm interested in. I really don't care about any of that. Show me the results. How can you see, by examining the evidence about the Bibles, that the KJV is better and the other "modern" ones worse? What are the bad effects that these other Bibles, these Bibles that you claim are influenced by Satan instead of inspired by God--what effects do they have on people?

The main effect of modern translations is disrespect and distrust of Scripture. Whenever you tell a person that such-and-such verse says such-and-such they go search high and low to find a translation that doesn't, and say "AHA! Everything is relative. My truth is not your truth. My Bible is not your Bible." Now this is where the facts above about the Arian Alexandrian manuscripts come in: these manuscripts were only used for a brief period in ONE century, during which the conservative leadership of the church at Alexandria was exiled because the heretics had connections with the state, and via spiritual fornication with the state, temporarily took over the church of that local. Now, should we use a Bible that popped up for one century in one specific location and then disappeared? Yeah, we dug up two copies of this bible (that disagree in over 2000 places with each other in the gospels alone) back in the early 1800s, but does that mean we should use them? Why disregard the Bible that has been used continuously? During the 1500 years that the Arian Alexandrian text was unknown to the world and to the church, the Received Text was in continuous use--preservation via usage. The question always boils down to preservation, and the question comes to a point in this: did God preserve the Bible via usage or did He preserve it by hiding it for 1500 years? or did He not preserve it at all? Those who use ONE modern translation have decided that God preserved it by hiding it for 1500 years and that that Arian Alexandrian text which popped up for one century, disappeared, and reappeared 1500 years later is the preserved word of God, and that translations of it which they use is the correct translation of it. Those that use the KJV have decided that the Received Text which predates the Arian Alexandrian text (even if we have no copy that old, although we do) and which was used during those 1500 years that the AAT was absent, was preserved by usage and it is the word of God, and the KJV is the correct translation of it. Everyone else, who says "all translations are equal" and "I use the NIV for some verses, the NKJV for some, the NASB for some," are they who have decided God has not preserved His word at all.

 

[Oblio]

Your authority appears to be Hebrew manuscripts.

Wrong, see Philip's comment.

Sin is right here - the issue being discussed is the sin principle not the issue of sins.

What do you think nature of sin in my comment refers to ?

Most Western Christians have a view of sin that is quite unlike that of the Apostles and those they taught.

 

[TSIBHOD]

The main effect of modern translations is disrespect and distrust of Scripture. Whenever you tell a person that such-and-such verse says such-and-such they go search high and low to find a translation that doesn't, and say "AHA! Everything is relative. My truth is not your truth. My Bible is not your Bible." Now this is where the facts above about the Arian Alexandrian manuscripts come in: these manuscripts were only used for a brief period in ONE century, during which the conservative leadership of the church at Alexandria was exiled because the heretics had connections with the state, and via spiritual fornication with the state, temporarily took over the church of that local. Now, should we use a Bible that popped up for one century in one specific location and then disappeared? Yeah, we dug up two copies of this bible (that disagree in over 2000 places with each other in the gospels alone) back in the early 1800s, but does that mean we should use them? Why disregard the Bible that has been used continuously? During the 1500 years that the Arian Alexandrian text was unknown to the world and to the church, the Received Text was in continuous use--preservation via usage. The question always boils down to preservation, and the question comes to a point in this: did God preserve the Bible via usage or did He preserve it by hiding it for 1500 years? or did He not preserve it at all? Those who use ONE modern translation have decided that God preserved it by hiding it for 1500 years and that that Arian Alexandrian text which popped up for one century, disappeared, and reappeared 1500 years later is the preserved word of God, and that translations of it which they use is the correct translation of it. Those that use the KJV have decided that the Received Text which predates the Arian Alexandrian text (even if we have no copy that old, although we do) and which was used during those 1500 years that the AAT was absent, was preserved by usage and it is the word of God, and the KJV is the correct translation of it. Everyone else, who says "all translations are equal" and "I use the NIV for some verses, the NKJV for some, the NASB for some," are they who have decided God has not preserved His word at all.

Manuscripts don't really matter to me. Hardly any of the changes make any major difference. And when you go to English versions, for the literal or semi-literal (and even the "dynamic" to an extent), the changes are even smaller. Sure, there may be differences in wording, but they come out to the same thing. Really, none of the Bibles are going to make you think that Jesus wasn't God, or that we can save ourselves, or whatever.

 

[Philip]

Is it ok for a version to attack the deity of Jesus Christ and still be called the word of God or a Bible?

An interesting question since the KJV uses the Masoretic Text. The MT has a distinctly anti-Christ(ian) bent to it. Consider this verse:

Psalms 39:6 LXX
Sacrifice and offering You did not desire; but a body You have prepared for me; whole burnt offering and sacrifice for sin You did not require.

Psalms 40:6 KJV/MT
Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; mine ears hast thou opened: burnt offering and sin offering hast thou not required.​

Which one matches this passage better?

Hebrews 10:5-6 KJV
Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me: In burnt offerings and [sacrifices] for sin thou hast had no pleasure.​

Which version of the OT is more Christian?

 

[AVBunyan]

An interesting question since the KJV uses the Masoretic Text. The MT has a distinctly anti-Christ(ian) bent to it. Consider this verse:

Which version of the OT is more Christian?

If it matches the AV then it is right - because one may not understand a verse doesn't mean it is wrong.

Now - I will go no further with this discussion until you answer my original question - nobody has yet to answer this. I have asked the below question several times:

"Is it ok for a version to attack the deity of Jesus Christ and still be called the word of God or a Bible?"

I've given just one clear example of this in Mic. 5:2 and all folks are doing are throwing me other examples they think shows a weakness in the AV.

One more time with feeling - My final authority is what I have in my hands - If the "LXX" or Hebrew/Greek manuscripts (take your pick for there are many and they all read differently and you couldn't prove which one mathes the "originals" anyway) reads differently than the AV then I will always stick with the AV.

Either one or two things here:

1. Some folks agree that Christ does has an origin thus stripping him of his diety or....
2. Some folks may not want to admit that the newer versions do attack the deity of Christ consistently and by tacit consent go along with this false doctrine.

God bless

 

[AVBunyan]

1. I prefer God and His Church on earth.
2. I prefer the Greek text over the Hebrew.
3. Not that confusing. The Greek OT texts were preserved by the same people who preserved the Greek NT texts your KJV is based on.
4. Mine's pretty simple too. One God. One Faith. One Church.

1. How do you know what God says?

2. Are you referring to this mythical "LXX" - Remember what Barnum and Bailey said?

3. Which Greek texts - there are many and all conflict. So, Phil, what is your final authority?

4. Ditto #1 answer

Since you have no written final authority whereby one can check you out then you have set yourself up to be pretty "unreproachable" - nice work Phil.

God bless

 

[Oblio]

No final authority

I think Philip has already addressed that.

 

[Borealis]

If it matches the AV then it is right - because one may not understand a verse doesn't mean it is wrong.

The 'AV' was authorized by men, not God. It was authorized by King James, who took upon himself the authority of being head of the Church. He usurped God's will and God's choice, much as Martin Luther did. Since men are fallible, your blind faith in the KJV isn't going to convince anyone.

Now - I will go no further with this discussion until you answer my original question - nobody has yet to answer this. I have asked the below question several times:

"Is it ok for a version to attack the deity of Jesus Christ and still be called the word of God or a Bible?"

I've given just one clear example of this in Mic. 5:2 and all folks are doing are throwing me other examples they think shows a weakness in the AV.

In the NAB your example verse is Micah 5:1. In the Douay-Rheims it is 5:2. The Douay-Rheims uses basically the same wording as your version does (and his going forth is from the beginning, from the days of eternity.) The NAB reads, 'Whose origin is from old, from ancient times.' The commentary included indicates that the reference is to the Davidic dynasty, which is indeed from of old, from ancient times.

BTW...I recall someone (I don't think it was you, AVBunyan) posting a fictional account of someone walking into a store and asking to buy a Bible, only to demonstrate to the flustered clerk that all sorts of verses aren't included in other translations, so only the KJV is good. One that sticks out in my mind is the 'alpha and omega', which in the KJV is Rev 1:11(?). Since most other Bibles don't have a Rev. 1:11 that reads that way, this is cited as 'proof' that other Bibles aren't the real Word of God. This shows a tremendous inability to look past the immediate, in the most literal sense. The Catholic Bibles that I've got access to all include that exact same line...but it's in Rev. 1:8. And yet this is ignored by KJV-onlyists, who insist that because the words 'alpha and omega' don't appear in the exact same numbering, that other Bibles are false.

There were other verses that had the exact same situation (appearing under a different number) that appeared in this little tale. I just remember the 'alpha and omega' one.

One more time with feeling - My final authority is what I have in my hands - If the "LXX" or Hebrew/Greek manuscripts (take your pick for there are many and they all read differently and you couldn't prove which one mathes the "originals" anyway) reads differently than the AV then I will always stick with the AV.

Then you have just admitted that you are worshipping a book, not God. My final authority is Jesus Christ, who has spoken for two thousand years through the Church HE founded.

Incidentally, there is a Bible translation that we know matches the originals much more closely than any English translation: The Vulgate. Written over a thousand years before the KJV, it was translated using sources and original texts that no longer existed by the late 16th century. THAT is the only Bible that has the official stamp of the Church in the West (i.e., the Catholic Church). I know that the Orthodox Churches use Greek instead, but even today the Vulgate is the only non-Greek translation that was every authorized by the Church. Even the NAB, or even the Douay-Rheims, do not carry the mark of official authorization.

Either one or two things here:

1. Some folks agree that Christ does has an origin thus stripping him of his diety or....

So being the son of Mary, he doesn't have an origin? I thought the whole point of the Divine Mystery of Christ was that He is both God AND Man, which means that one aspect of him does in fact have an origin.

2. Some folks may not want to admit that the newer versions do attack the deity of Christ consistently and by tacit consent go along with this false doctrine.

Only because you choose to interpret them in that way. As I stated, the passage you refer to can be read just as easily as referring to the House of David, from which Christ is in fact descended.

 

[Borealis]

1. How do you know what God says?

2. Are you referring to this mythical "LXX" - Remember what Barnum and Bailey said?

You know, I distinctly recall providing you with clear proof that the LXX did in fact exist before Christ's birth. The Dead Sea scrolls include LXX manuscripts that date from B.C. Did you just blow off what I posted, because it didn't fit your preconceived notion that the LXX is a fake?

3. Which Greek texts - there are many and all conflict. So, Phil, what is your final authority?

God, of course.

Since you have no written final authority whereby one can check you out then you have set yourself up to be pretty "unreproachable" - nice work Phil.

God bless

Well, we do in fact have one final authority: God, who gave us a Church, not a book. The Bible came from the Church, and the Church was charged with interpreting the Bible, through the guidance and wisdom of the Holy Spirit.

The Bible is a doorway to the truth; it's not the entire room.

 

[Oblio]

Either one or two things here:

1. Some folks agree that Christ does has an origin thus stripping him of his diety or....
2. Some folks may not want to admit that the newer versions do attack the deity of Christ consistently and by tacit consent go along with this false doctrine.

False dilema

 

[Philip]

If it matches the AV then it is right - because one may not understand a verse doesn't mean it is wrong.

Wouldn't it be fair to say that the LXX version of the Psalm matches the KJV version of Hebrews while the KJV version of the Psalm doesn't?

Now - I will go no further with this discussion until you answer my original question - nobody has yet to answer this. I have asked the below question several times:

"Is it ok for a version to attack the deity of Jesus Christ and still be called the word of God or a Bible?"

Are you familar with the term 'Loaded Question'?

I've given just one clear example of this in Mic. 5:2 and all folks are doing are throwing me other examples they think shows a weakness in the AV.

I have pointed out how the KJV, through the use of the MT, attacks the Diety of Christ. Why do you continue to call the KJV 'the word of God or a Bible'?

One more time with feeling - My final authority is what I have in my hands

My final authority is God and the Body of Christ on Earth.

- If the "LXX" or Hebrew/Greek manuscripts (take your pick for there are many and they all read differently and you couldn't prove which one mathes the "originals" anyway) reads differently than the AV then I will always stick with the AV.

If the Greek texts are unreliable, why was the KJV translated from the Greek New Testament?

1. How do you know what God says?

The Body of Christ has preserved God's revelation to us, including the Scriptures. How do you know what God says?

2. Are you referring to this mythical "LXX" - Remember what Barnum and Bailey said?

As I have pointed out, the MT used for the Old Testament of the KJV alters passages to deny Christ. Why do you hold to it?

3. Which Greek texts - there are many and all conflict.

Again, if they are in conflict, why do you use the KJV which is translated from the Greek NT?

So, Phil, what is your final authority?

As I have stated several times, God and His Church on earth.

 

[AVBunyan]

1. Wouldn't it be fair to say that the LXX version of the Psalm matches the KJV version of Hebrews while the KJV version of the Psalm doesn't?

2. Are you familar with the term 'Loaded Question'?

3. I have pointed out how the KJV, through the use of the MT, attacks the Diety of Christ. Why do you continue to call the KJV 'the word of God or a Bible'?

4. My final authority is God and the Body of Christ on Earth.

5. If the Greek texts are unreliable, why was the KJV translated from the Greek New Testament?

6. The Body of Christ has preserved God's revelation to us, including the Scriptures. How do you know what God says?

7. As I have pointed out, the MT used for the Old Testament of the KJV alters passages to deny Christ. Why do you hold to it?

8. As I have stated several times, God and His Church on earth.

1. We've been through this LXX - you believed the part line onthis and nothing will change that - feel secure knwoing that you are in agreement with the world here (Rom. 12:1-3). Now, lets' agree to drop this LXX - you and are not budging.

2. Nothing loaded - I showed you this simple verse where te deity of Christ is clearly attacked and you never admitted or denied, or anyhthing - you passed by it and tried to dig up some other verse to try to divert the attention from that verse to something else. Here is a novel idea Phil - go back and re-read Mic. 5:2 from the modern versions and then comment on it before bringing up other stuff - I was first.

3. You are doing a good job of creating some confusion here - show me your verse again.

4. Let's look at this:
a. God is your authority? - How do you know what he says - does he speak to you audibly? Are you special? (like myself) is your final authority? I never claimed infallibility in interpreting. I've been wrong all the time but I have a book that is right and that I can trust! It is up to me to study the scriptures, compare spiritual things with spiritual things from the scriptures and trust the Holy Spirit to guide me.
b. The Body of Christ is your authority? A bunch of saved sinners! Please define what you mean by the "Body of Christ"? On earth? A bunch of sinners? See my comments on 4a above - they apply.

5. Never said the Greek/Hebrew the AV came from was - I was referring to the Egpytian texts your new versions come from. Even so Greek/Hebrew texts have been messed with so much since 1611 I would just stick with theh AV anyway.

6. Including revelation? You mean you and others get special revelatioin other than the scriptures - that is mysticism at its worse. Example - Bob says, "God told me to the moon is green." Bill says, "God told me the mooon is yellow." Rediculous!!!! You fellas just don't reason through what you are saying - you are setting fallen, sinful man up to be the authority.

How do I know what God says? Why bother asking - you know my answer - I open up a King James bible you can get at Walgreens for $5.95.

(Side note here - Phil - I don't expect you to believe or accept anything I say or explain to you for you wouldl not be able to take the heat if you were to go against yoru church. But since you ask the same old, worn out questions and bring up the most common tired issues then I answer them not for you but for others who may be reading this so they can see the nonsense of modern reasoning. So, thanks for being a valubale source of modern thinking. )

7. Show me these verses - there are tons of examples that can be searched on google alone to show the modern versions attack the Lord Jesus Christ.

8. God and his church? - Ditto point 5 and 6 and the last 100 posts I wrote on this.

Finally - let's get mean here - you know why I think many of you folks don't want a written final authority? Do you know why I believe you want to leave interpretaion in the hands of a "church" or a "committee"?
Could it be that many folks are just lazy and don't want to study? My old nature would love to just leave it in the hands of others so then I wouldn't ahve to study or be accountable - I could just blame them!

Let's clear something up - when folks stand before God and give account they will not be able to blame the church or a committee for bad info - God wil be looking to the one who will be standing before Him to answer.

God bless

 

[Oblio]

Here is a novel idea Phil - go back and re-read Mic. 5:2 from the modern versions and then comment on it before bringing up other stuff - I was first.

You speak of modern versions, yet you deify an interpretation of inferior OT texts that is 1800 years late coming on the scene.

Now, lets' agree to drop this LXX - you and are not budging.

Why should we drop the word of God, as used by Christ and His Apostles. It has been with us for 1800 years rather than the 'ancient' 400 year old KJV.

 

[AVBunyan]

1. The 'AV' was authorized by men, not God. It was authorized by King James, who took upon himself the authority of being head of the Church. He usurped God's will and God's choice, much as Martin Luther did. Since men are fallible, your blind faith in the KJV isn't going to convince anyone.
2. Then you have just admitted that you are worshipping a book, not God. My final authority is Jesus Christ, who has spoken for two thousand years through the Church HE founded.

Due to time restraitns I will lonly comment on the above 2.

1. I could care less who authorized it or sat down and translated it - I trust the providential God of history to run things. God used two murders in the OT to write a good bit of the OT. So, this idea of men running things is a joke and unscriptural. Some of you folks need to look at the providential view of history and quit trusting in churches and committees made up of fallible men. Who authorized your Duoy Reheims but a committee made up of a bunch of men. Why not just compare the fruits of the AV with the fruits ofo the Duoy - history has recorded where the revivals, light, advancements, and liberty have come from. Many of you have put your trust and have turned over your conscience to mere mortal men and churches - show me from scripture where that was to be God's will. Yes, I know about Peter and the rock, etc. So, I should have never asked the question - retracked. And you are hinting that your authorities are not infallible !

Since you brought up the AV being authorized by men then I post this old article:
Providential View vs. Modern View

Those Poor ‘Ole Misguided Anglican Translators!

I hear a lot of talk today about those poor ole’ King James translators and how they just couldn’t get it right. Poor God – got caught off guard did he by those ‘ole, misinformed, misguided, etc. “Anglican”, Puritan folks? On another forum a poster went so far as to call the AV the “Anglican Version”. Folks are amusing aren’t they? Who needs “Happy Days” reruns for amusement when you can tune in to this kind of stuff?

Alright now – about this man in charge issue. Oh yea, this is what they are really saying! What these folks are saying is the translators were not biologists, zoologists, nuclear physicists, etc. and therefore were not capable of handling the tough issues. And if they were then they certainly were more qualified (like today’s translators!!!!) then they wouldn’t have put unicorns, leviathans, dragons, and Easter in the Bible. I mean – how did those “poor ole’ translators miss such glaring translations?!?!?! These King James Bible rejecters take the world’s view of man – they believe man runs things and overrules God. They can trust God for their salvation but when it comes to the committee in 1604-1611 they can’t believe that God would intervene and work all things out after the counsel of his own will – Eph. 1:11.

Now you will say, “Well, if God was in the committee in 1604 then he could be in the committees today. Questions for you on this:

1. Why would God wait when the English language has gone downhill to the point where it has almost become street-gutter language? During 1611 the English language was at it’s peak.
2. Why would God wait to update his word for the 100th time in the last 50 years during a time when “Christianity” is at the lowest state ever?
3. Why would God use this modern, fleshly, worldly, carnal, apostate, compromising, weak, Bible-rejecting “Christianity” to “refine” his holy word?
4. Why would God wait until just before he comes back to update his word again?!?!?! God quit speaking around 400 years before Christ’s first coming and it appears he quit speaking around 400 years before Christ’s second coming.

As you well know, Moses was a murderer, David was an adulterer and a murderer yet God got some pretty good books from them under his providential hand so I guess God could use those ‘ole misguided Anglicans.

So, when I hear this junk that the “Anglicans” did this and that because of their background and this is why all these “mistranslations” and blunders came up then I attribute this to these KJV rejecters of not taking the providential viewpoint of history.

Idon’t care if many of those translators were a-millennial, baby-sprinkling Anglicans or whatever. God put a book together and “any ole’ bush will do” with God. These KJV rejecters have a very small view of God and his providential hand in history.

I’m not blowing a gasket because I can’t figure out what a unicorn is - all I know it is there and I believe it. Do you know what I’m learning after all these years? When these folks don’t understand something they automatically assume it is an error. This is the height of pride – thinking you can understand all that is in the Bible.

Brethren – if I run across something I don’t understand and God doesn’t show me then by simple faith I assume God is not ready to show me. I don’t assume it is an error and pull out the 250 Greek and Hebrew lexicons and try to sort it out!!!

You have to settle the issue – does God run things or man?


Now back to this post...

2. Borealis - I wouldn't think you would be the type to bring up such a false misrepresentation of my view. We who believe the AV do not worship a book - we esteem the book but do not worship a book - we worship the God who wrote those words and find God's words most precious and we are thankful to have those precious words that we can read. Do you have them?

Now - you alluded to me worshipping a book because I place such an emphasis on the book. I could say the same to you in that I could say you worship men for a church and committee is made up of men and it appears that you are putting your trust and confidence in men. But, honestly I don't believe you worship men.

My confidence is in the God behind the men he has used.


I've said this so much it is even getting old even to me but.....if your final authority is Jesus Christ then good the.....

How do you know what Jesus Christ says?


My final authority is God also but the difference between me and thee is...


I believe God's words are preserved for us today to read and study are found in a King James Bible or any modern versions based upon the King James Bible or the manuscripts it was translated from.


God bless

 

[Andyman_1970]

I was referring to the Egpytian texts your new versions come from. Even so Greek/Hebrew texts have been messed with so much since 1611 I would just stick with the AV anyway.

As for the Greek Text’s being messed with the Byzantine MSS was “messed with”. Byzantine MSS contain what is called the "expansion of piety" which occurred near the middle ages. What the "expansion of piety" is are phrases like "The Lord Jesus" or "The Lord Jesus Christ" where in the older MSS you may just have "Jesus" or "Christ." The copyists in the later years felt it was more pious to expand the title of Christ in many instances. None of these expansions are found in the earlier manuscripts.

As for those “Egyptian Text’s” the Alexandrian (Egyptian) copyists do not omit anything that would remove any of the major themes of scripture. If they are a cult one has to speculate why Jesus just inst a man like other cults taught at that time?

Those who propigate the view that the Alexandrians were heretics (and therefore assume all must have been) miss the fact that the Byzantine area was just as full of heretics. Undoubtedly you’d point to men like Origen as proof that anything from “Egypt” is corrupt. However seeing that the Byzantine area had it’s fair share of arain heretics its kind of a useless argument either way. Of course those who dismiss the “Egyptian” Texts don’t mention an Alexandrian named Athanasius, a contemporary of Origen, who was a strong defender of the deity of Christ.