... are you currently using?

I constantly use both the KJV and NASB in a parallel version.

If I had to choose only one, it would be the KJV.

NIV, but I hope to get that parallel bible with the NASB, KJV, NIV, and NLT soon.

HEY ALL

WELL I am currently using the
NKJV. BUT I have used the KJV---
the Amplified BIBLE---the revised standard---
the NIV-----

I DON'T think I left any out

dgrimm60

Ah yes, we've had these for sale. I like them!

I read the KJV and Clear Word.

I use God's Word. It's written in modern English with contractions, one column, and in paragraph form like American Literature. Check it out:

http://godsword.org/

I use the NIV for Sabbath School Lesson study but then use other versions for anything else.

My study Bible is parallel KJV & NKJV. But currently I'm reading from the One Year Chronological Bible, which is NIV.

I also use e-Sword on my laptop, with all the free English versions, plus NKJV & NASB, and the French Louis Segond version. Sometimes I compare versions with it.

I also like the Louis Segond version and compare with it also.

Welcome, welcome, SandyLea! I'm looking forward to seeing more of you around! :)

I usually use NCV, but I like God's Word also.

Jerry what is the NCV?

pk

That's the New Century Version. It came out about 1987. Very interesting one.

At Daniel 9: 24-27, it says "490 years" rather than 70 weeks.

I have about 25 Bibles in a Bible on CD. The New Jerusalem Bible has an interesting angle at times, so I always check it. Plus, there are dictionaries and a number of history helps, Josephus, for example, on the CD. I mostly study the Bible on the computer, but have marked up my NLT study Bible.

When studying the Bible on the computer I like to use the Literal Bible with Strong's numbers and definitions to see either the Hebrew or Greek definitions, then click to see the parallel versions.

My favorite version is the New Living Translation. I've got it on audio CD, too, and listen to it frequently, although the voice acting is a little hokey in places.

I recently found an unusual Bible at a used book store. It's called The Bible as a Novel. It's got some fiction as filler, but it's really pleasant to read.

A really oddball translation is the Message. I get a few laughs over it, sometimes, maybe because it's way out there.

I've never heard of the Louis Segond version. Maybe you could paste a sample here, Gail.

The Literal Translation in Daniel reads Seventy "Sevens" rather than seventy weeks.

Yes, that's what it says literally. It's the same thing as 70 weeks. 70 x 7 =490 years.

The Louis Segond is the "good" French bible, using the passé simple, which is a literary tense only.

I also have one that is in everyday French, but the Louis Segond is the one I prefer. It is somewhat similar to the KJV in the way it words passages.

Here is a sample:



If I was to translate that literally to English it would say,

"I have been crucified with Christ; and if I live, it's no longer me who lives, it's Christ who lives in me; if I live now in the flesh, I live in the faith of the Son of God, who loved me and who delivered (gave) himself for me." Gal.2:20

Hiya Gail! Good to be here...thanks for the greeting!

We are having interesting discussions in our church right now about which version is the 'right' one. It is a small, traditional church and the overwhelming response is the KJV. Since that is my choice anyway, I can sit back and just listen to the debates :)

I tend to say that the right version is the one that's read...

I enjoy all the translations, but if you look closely at what happened in the Christian church between 1611 to 1881, I'd say God accomplished amazing things during the time when the whole English-speaking church was reading from that single text.

Hark!

Speakest thou not in the same toungue as the one-and-only True Bible Language and Translation given by God to the English? Henceforth we mayest speak unto one another in this True Language, given to men nigh unto four centuries past.

Mindest thou not the more than several obscure or incomprehensible renderings of the KJV.

Don't you enjoy the KJV, Spencer, Marlowe, Shakespeare, and Milton? I think Elizabethan English is far more beautiful today's English.

But I also like reading any good translation of the Bible. Even some bad ones such as the NWT have a few well done verses.

I understand that the KJV is still a best-seller.

For those of you who get bogged down with the language of the KJV but appreciate the version, try the KJVER. It's not a separate translation like the NKJV, but it's the King James which has had the archaic words updated.

I like it a lot! If I run into a verse that I like how the KJV translates it but want it in today's language, I really like the KJVer (ER=Easy Reading)

And it has the words of Christ in red all the way through, not just in the Gospels.

Do you know when it was first published? I like the idea and think it's long overdue. I've never seen it at the Loma Linda ABC but I'll go and ask them about it today.

It hasn't been out that long, I would say we've had it just in the last year or so. They are published by Whitaker House. But I loved it on first sight once I leafed through it.

I use the Joao ferreira de almeida in portuguese, and i use the KJV in english. The kj was a bit hard at first especially because english is not my first language, but i wouldn't trade for any of those modern english ones,... And I got quickly used to it...

I read the King James because it's a translation of the Textus Receptus and Masoretic text. This was the Bible the "church in the wilderness" died for.

The "archaic" language in the KJV was actually archaic in 1611 as well. They stopped using "thee" and "thine" and "you" and "ye" in the 13th century. The reason those forms were used was because they most closely parallel the Hebrew and Greek, which has singular and plural forms of "you".

Here's a video which will tell you everything you need to know about the different Bibles- http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8000050340026696207

As you already know, I bought that Bible and really enjoy it very much. I was expecting it to have the obsolete English words replaced, but the editor simply underlined the obsolete English words and put modern ones under the verse.

I noticed, though, that they didn't underline some words that they should have, but they got the major ones.

Have you ever heard of King James II ? It is using the same Greek text (the Received Text), but it gives it in modern English. It's more accurate and literal than the New King James. It is translated by Jay P. Green and is published by Associated Publishers and Authors, Inc. Grand Rapids, Mich. 49501. I would love to get another copy of it, this time in leather. I got the first edition (1971) and it has a few printing mistakes.

This generation has a hunger for perversion. What was perversion just a few years ago, is now "normal". What was "hiding" in the closet is now "parading" in our streets. Perversion has found a welcome home - from the living room, to the White House; from our churches - to even the word of God!

Our friend Webster, defines "pervert" as 1. to cause to turn aside or away from what is good or true... 2. to twist the meaning or sense of: misinterpret (Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, 1977, p.856).

A perfect definition of The New International Version (NIV): "to cause to turn aside or away from what is good or true" and "to twist the meaning or sense of". If you doubt that, before you start reading this tract - get the NIV and check it as you read this tract!

The NIV perverts the deity of Jesus Christ!

I TIMOTHY 3:16: The clearest verse in the Bible proclaiming that Jesus Christ was God. The King James Bible (KJB) reads, "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: GOD WAS MANIFEST IN THE FLESH. . ." The King James says, plainly, "GOD was manifest in the flesh". The NIV reads, "HE appeared in a body". The NIV "twists" "GOD" to "HE". "HE appeared in a body"? So What? Everyone has "appeared in a body"! "He" is a pronoun that refers to a noun or antecedent. There is no antecedent in the context! The statement does NOT make sense! The NIV subtilty (see Genesis 3:1) perverts I Timothy 3:16 into utter nonsense!

PHILIPPIANS 2:6: The KJB again, clearly declares the deity of Jesus Christ: "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery TO BE EQUAL WITH GOD" The NIV reads, "Who, being in very nature God, DID NOT CONSIDER EQUALITY WITH GOD something to be grasped,". The NIV again subtitly perverts the deity of Jesus Christ!

The NIV perverts the virgin birth!

LUKE 2:33: The King James Bible reads, "And JOSEPH and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him." The NIV reads, "The CHILD'S FATHER and mother marveled at what was said about him." The "CHILD'S FATHER"? Was Joseph Jesus's father? Not if you believe the virgin birth! Not if you believe John 3:16, that Jesus Christ was the Son of God! A subtil, "perversion" of the virgin birth. See also Luke 2:43.

The NIV removes the blood of Jesus Christ!

COLOSSIANS 1:14: The KJB reads, "In whom we have redemption THROUGH HIS BLOOD, even the forgiveness of sins:" The NIV reads, "In whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins." The NIV rips out the precious words "THROUGH HIS BLOOD"! Friend, redemption is ONLY "THROUGH HIS BLOOD". Hebrews 9:22, reads, ". . . without shedding of BLOOD is no remission." That old song says, "What can wash away my sins, NOTHING BUT THE BLOOD OF JESUS!"

The NIV perverts John 3:16 into a LIE!

JOHN 3:16: The NIV reads, "For God so loved the world that he gave his ONE AND ONLY SON, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life" Jesus was NOT "the one and only son" - Adam is called the "son of God" in Luke 3:38, there are "sons of God" in Job 1:6 and Christians are called "sons of God" in Phil 2:15, I John 3:2- but Jesus was the "ONLY BEGOTTEN SON"! By removing the critical word "BEGOTTEN" - The NIV perverts John 3:16 into a LIE! The NIV does the same in John 1:14, 1:18, and 3:18.

The NIV perverts TRUTH into LIES!

The NIV perverts Mark 1:2,3 into a LIE! The NIV reads "It is written in Isaiah the prophet: I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way-a voice of one calling in the desert, Prepare the way for the Lord, make straight paths for him." It is NOT written in Isaiah! "I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way" - is found in Malachi 3:1! The King James correctly reads: "As it is written in the PROPHETS, . . ." A better translation! Easier to read - BY A LIE!

Psalms 119:160 says, "Thy word is TRUE. . ." John 17:17 says, ". . . thy word is TRUTH." Titus 1:2 clearly says, ". . . God that CANNOT LIE" How could the God of Titus 1:2 be the God of Mark 1:2,3 in the NIV!? IT IS IMPOSSIBLE! For Hebrews 6:18 clearly declares, ". . . it was IMPOSSIBLE for God to LIE" It is impossible for the LIES in the NIV to be the words of GOD! Whose words are they? I'll give you a hint - Jesus Christ calls him "A LIAR, and the father of it" in John 8:44!

The NIV again openly LIES in 2 Samuel 21:19, ". . . Elhanan son of Jaare-Oregim the Bethlehemite killed Goliath the Gittite, who had a spear with a shaft like a weaver's rod." What 8-year-old doesn't know that David killed Goliath?

Romans 1:18-32 describes the "path to perversion" and verse 25, describes their decline, "Who changed the TRUTH of God into a LIE. . ."! Not surprisingly, The NIV perverts Romans 1:25 from "CHANGED the truth of God INTO a lie" to "EXCHANGED the truth of God FOR a lie"!

The NIV and sexual perversion!

Romans 1:26-32 also shows the "fruits" of "sowing" ". . . the TRUTH of God into a LIE. . ." Verses 26-27 says "FOR THIS CAUSE (vs 25 for "changing the TRUTH of God into a LIE") God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, . . ."

The last few years homosexuality and sexual perversion have "exploded" into the mainstream. Legislation is now pending making same-sex marriages legal. Books such as Heather Has Two Mommies and Daddy's Roommate, promoting homosexuality, are in our schools. According to The Washington Post, bisexuality and homosexuality, are the "in thing" in our public schools. And even churches are now welcoming homosexuals and are even ordaining them in the ministry!

A literary critic on the NIV translation was homosexual author Dr. Virginia Mollenkott. In Episcopal, Witness (June 1991, pp. 20-23), she admits, "My lesbianism has ALWAYS been a part of me. . ." To no surprise, "sodomite" is completely removed from the NIV. (Deut. 23:17, I Kings 14:24, 15:12, 22:46, II Kings 23:7) And of course, I Cor. 6:9, ". . . effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind. . ." is replaced with the non-offensive ". . . nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders. . ." Notice the NIV in I Cor. 6:9 does NOT condemn "homosexuals" or the "act of homosexuality" - but ONLY "homosexual OFFENDERS".

The NIV & Zondervan

A little known fact: In 1988 Zondervan and the NIV was purchased by Harper & Row, Publishers (now HarperCollins Publishers). HarperCollins publishes "pro-homosexual" books such as Making Out, The Book of Lesbian Sex and Sexuality described as "Beautifully illustrated with full-color photography,. . . Making Out is the complete illustrated guide to lesbian sexuality and relationships. . .the intricacies of love play. . ." and many other pro-homosexual books!

HarperCollins is a subsidiary of the global media empire, The News Corporation, owned by Rupert Murdock. The News Corporation empire include Fox Broadcasting, Twentieth Century Fox, and more than 128 newspapers. Fox Broadcasting produces some of the most sexually lewd shows on television. Murdock also publishes the British newspaper, the Sun, notorious for its nude pin-ups.

VERY IMPORTANT! For the REAL PROOF Check out this link to HarperCollins- http://www.harpercollins.com/global_scripts/product_catalog/book_xml.asp?isbn=0380015390&tc=cx

Now where is Don Wildmon when we really need him? Don was quick to boycott Kmart because subsidiary, Waldenbooks sold Playboy and Penthouse. Kmart can't "hold a candle" to the "filth" spewed by The News Corporation. Why isn't Don boycotting Zondervan and the NIV? Friend, every time you purchase the NIV you are giving to people who produce pro-homosexuality, pornographic material — AND THE SATANIC BIBLE! "Can two walk together, except they be AGREED?" Amos 3:3

Jesus Christ plainly said in Matthew 7:17-18:

Even so every GOOD tree bringeth forth GOOD fruit; but a CORRUPT tree bringeth forth EVIL FRUIT. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a CORRUPT tree bring forth GOOD FRUIT. (Matthew 7:17-18)

Do you think Jesus Christ was LIEING?

Do you really believe God would ALLOW His HOLY word to be "owned" by that group? ". . .for what fellowship hath RIGHTEOUSNESS with UNRIGHTEOUSNESS? and what communion hath light with darkness?"2 Cor. 6:14

Do you actually believe God would ALLOW His Holy Word to published by the same ungodly people who publish the Satanic Bible?

Being born again, not of CORRUPTIBLE seed, but of INCORRUPTIBLE, by the WORD OF GOD, which liveth and abideth for ever. (1 Peter 1:23)

Isn't it EQUALLY amazing that the King James Bible is the ONLY Bible that is not OWNED by men?

That's right! The King James Bible has no COPYRIGHT ownership! It's copyright is the CROWN COPYRIGHT which ALLOWS it to be published by ANYONE, ANYTIME! Without asking ANYBODY for permission!

". . .but the word of God is NOT BOUND." 2 Timothy 2:9

The NIV robs Jesus Christ of worship!

In Matt. 8:2, 9:18, 15:25, 18:26, 20:20, Mark 5:6, 15:19 "worshipped him" is removed in the NIV! Why doesn't the NIV want Jesus Christ to be worshipped? Hint: see Luke 4:7, Matt. 4:9.

The NIV perverts Jesus Christ into Lucifer!

Isaiah 14:14 reveals Satan's grandest desire, "I will be like the most High." And with a little subtil perversion - the NIV in Isaiah 14:12 grants Satan's wish!

ISAIAH 14:12: The KJB reads, "How art thou fallen from heaven, O LUCIFER, son of the morning!. . ." The NIV PERversion reads, "How you have fallen from heaven, O MORNING STAR, son of the dawn. . ." The NIV change "Lucifer" to "MORNING STAR".

BUT WAIT. . . I thought the Lord Jesus Christ was the MORNING STAR?

Doesn't Revelation 22:16 say, "I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and MORNING STAR".

The NIV CLEARY AND BLATANTLY makes LUCIFER -- The Lord Jesus Christ! WHAT BLASPHEMY! WHAT PERVERSION! And Christians claim the NIV is a "better translation"!

ISAIAH 14:15: The King James Bible condemns Lucifer to hell: "Yet thou shalt be brought down to HELL . . ." The NIV does NOT condemn Lucifer to HELL! The NIV reads, "But you are brought down to the GRAVE. . ." We all go to the GRAVE! Why doesn't the NIV want Satan in hell?

The NIV removes and perverts the place of hell!

The word "hell" occurs 31 times in the Old Testament in the King James Bible. In the Old Testament of the NIV it occurs - ZERO! The word "hell" is NOT in the Old Testament of the NIV!

And what do they do with "hell"? Take PSALM 9:17 for example: The King James reads, "The wicked shall be turned into HELL. . ." The NIV, reads, "The wicked return to the GRAVE. . ." We ALL "return to the GRAVE"! By removing "hell" the NIV perverts Psalm 9:17 into nonsense!

In the New Testament the NIV zaps out "hell" 9 times. And what "clearer" "easier to understand" word does the NIV "update" hell with? Five times they use - HADES! (Matt 16:18, Rev 1:18, 6:8, 20:13,14) What "common person" understands HADES? Everybody knows what HELL is! Do you know what HADES is? Hades is not always a place of torment or terror. The Assyrian Hades is an abode of blessedness with silver skies called "Happy Fields". In the satanic New Age Movement, Hades is an intermediate state of purification! Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary defines HADES: "the underground abode of the dead in Greek MYTHOLOGY". The NIV perverts your Bible into MYTHOLOGY!

The NIV perverts The Lord's Prayer into The Devil's Prayer!

LUKE 11:2-4: The KJB reads, ". . .Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth. Give us day by day our daily bread. And forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil." The NIV removes everything that refers to a Holy God in heaven -"WHICH ART IN HEAVEN. . . Thy will be done, AS IN HEAVEN, so in earth. . . but DELIVER US FROM EVIL." Everything that distinguishes God from the Devil is REMOVED! "OUR FATHER" of the NIV is "NOT IN HEAVEN" and "DOES NOT DELIVER FROM EVIL!" I wonder who it could be? (hint: see John 8:44)

The Bible warns against taking away and adding to the words of God!

Deuteronomy 4:2 reads: "YE SHALL NOT ADD unto the word which I command you, NEITHER SHALL YE DIMINISH ought from it . . ."

Proverbs 30:6, reads, "ADD THOU NOT unto his words . . ."

And just in case you missed it, GOD'S LAST WARNING is Revelation 22:18,19, ". . . If any man SHALL ADD unto these things. . . 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 Jesus Christ, in Luke 8:12, gives a clear aim of Satan, ". . . then cometh the devil, and TAKETH AWAY the word . . ."

The NIV completely "TAKETH AWAY" 17 verses!

Wonderful and precious verses like:
MATTHEW 18:11: "For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.".
ACTS 8:37: "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."

The NIV PERversion completely "TAKETH AWAY" Matthew 17:21, 18:11, 23:14, Mark 7:16, 9:44, 9:46, 11:26, 15:28, Luke 17:36, 23:17, John 5:4, Acts 8:37, 15:34, 24:7, 28:28, Romans 16:24 and 1 John 5:7!

After Mark 16:8 the NIV says, "The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20." ZAP-There goes another 12 verses! And by the way, that is absolutely untrue! The book, The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel of Mark, by Dean Burgon contains over 400 pages of documented evidence for Mark 16:9-20, that has never been refuted, nor ever will!

After John 7:52, the NIV, reads, "The earliest and most reliable manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53-8:11" ZAP-There goes another 12 verses!

Matt. 12:47, 21:44, Luke 22:43 and 22:44 are all removed in the footnotes!

That's 45 complete verses the NIV removes from the text or in the footnotes!

The NIV "TAKETH AWAY" 64,576 words!

Don't look for the "mercyseat" in the NIV - GONE!
Don't look for "Jehovah" in the NIV - GONE!
Don't look for the "Godhead" in the NIV - GONE!

The NIV removes wonderful Bible "terms" like remission, regeneration, impute, propitiation, new testament and many others!

Despite God's clear warnings about "taking away" from His words - the NIV removes 64,576 words! Over 8 percent of God's word is "TAKETH AWAY"!

That equals REMOVING the books of Ruth, Esther, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Lamentations, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Malachi, Colossians, I Thessalonians, II Thessalonians, I Timothy, II Timothy, Titus, Philemon, James, I Peter, II Peter, I John, II John, III John, Jude and more - COMBINED!!! The equivalence of ripping out OVER 30 BOOKS of the Bible!

In case you think it's insignificant words like "thee" and "thou"? The NIV removes major portions of at least 147 verses!

Here's a small (very small) sampling of words removed in the NIV!

Matt. 6:13, "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen."
Matt. 15:8, "This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth"
Matt. 19:9, "and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery."
Matt. 20:7, "and whatsoever is right, that shall ye receive."
Matt. 20:16, "for many be called, but few chosen."
Matt. 20:22, "and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with"
Matt. 25:13, "wherein the Son of Man cometh."
Matt. 27:35, "that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet They parted my garments among them and upon my vesture did they cast lots"
Mark 6:11, "Verily I say unto you, it shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city."
Mark 10:21, "take up the cross."
Luke 1:28, "blessed art thou among women"
Luke 4:4, "but by every word of God"
Luke 4:8, "get thee behind me Satan"
Luke 4:18, "he hath sent me to heal the broken hearted"
Luke 11:2-4, "Our ... which art in ... Thy will be done, as in heaven so in earth... but deliver us from evil"
John 1:27, "is preferred before me"
John 3:13, "which is in heaven"
John 3:15, "should not perish"
John 11:41, "from the place where the dead was laid"
John 16:16, "because I go to the Father"
Acts 10:6, "he shall tell thee what thou oughtest to do"
Acts 15:18, "Known unto God are all his works"
Acts 20:24, "But none of these things move me"
Acts 23:9, "let us not fight against God"
Rom. 8:1, "who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit"
Rom. 13:9, "Thou shalt not bear false witness"
I Cor. 6:20, "and in your spirit which are God's"
I Cor. 11:24; "Take eat... broken"
II Cor. 10:4, "but mighty through God"
Gal. 3:1, "that you should not obey the truth"
Eph. 5:30, "of his flesh, and of his bones"
Phil. 3:16, "let us mind the same thing"
I Tim. 6:5, "from such wthdraw thyself"
Heb. 7:21, "after the order of Melchisedec"
I Pet. 1:22, "through the Spirit"
I Pet. 4:14, "on their part he is evil spoken of, but on your part he is glorified"
I John 4:3, "Christ is come in the flesh"
I John 5:13, "and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God"
Rev. 1:11, "I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last"
Rev. 5:14, "him that liveth for ever and ever"
Rev. 14:5, "before the throne of God"
Rev. 21:24, "of them which are saved"

Jesus Christ says, in Luke 4:4, ". . . It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by EVERY WORD of God." But not according to the NIV! In fact, the NIV even "TAKETH AWAY" the last half of Luke 4:4 - "BUT BY EVERY WORD OF GOD"! And Jesus Christ was quoting Deuteronomy 8:3 to Satan! Does the NIV PERversion seriously think the Lord Jesus Christ does NOT know Duet. 8:3???

The LIES used to promote the NIV. . .

LIE 1) The NIV "just" updates the "archaic" words and makes it "easier to understand". Nothing is "really changed.
FACT: The NIV denys the deity of Jesus Christ; the virgin birth; glorifies Satan; openly lie; removes 17 complete verses and 64,576 words!

LIE 2) The NIV is easier to read and understand.
FACT: According to a Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level research study, The King James Bible is by far the easiest! Out of 26 different categories - the King James graded easier in a whopping 23! In selected analysis, the KJB average grade level was 5.8 - the NIV was 8.4! (New Age Bible Versions, Riplinger, pp.195-209)

LIE 3) Older and more reliable manuscripts have been discovered since the King James Bible.
FACT: Dr. Sam Gipp writes, "The fact is, that the King James translators had ALL OF THE READINGS available to them that modern critics have available to them today." (The Answer Book, Gipp, p.110) And furthermore, it is a well documented fact that 90 - 95 per cent of all readings agree with the King James Bible!

LIE 4) The NIV is more accurate.
FACT: The KJB is a literal word for word translation. When the translators had to add words for sentence structure they are in italics. The NIV uses "dynamic equivalence". Rather than a word for word translation, they add, change and subtract to make the verse say what they "thought" it should! The Preface to the NIV even says, ". . .they have striven for more than a word-for-word translation. . ."

Source- http://www.av1611.org/niv.html

NIV has some important facts taken out so I stick to a Romanian Bible or a NKJV.

Briefly, it is not a matter of taking things out of the Bible. It is a matter of the Greek text that is used to make the translation.

The NIV and most other modern translations are based on the text printed by the United Bible Societies. This is called "the Critical Text."

The KJV and NKJV are both based on the reading of the Received Text. This text is similar in most places to the Majority Text.

The editors of the United Bible Societies' text is based on the reading given by only a handful (sometimes only 2 or 3) ancient Greek manuscripts, and they often ignore many hundreds of manuscripts if the Vaticanus and Sianiaticus manuscripts agree with each other and conflict with the rest of the manuscripts.

The best way to study the Bible is to use 3 or 4 good translations.

My favorites are the KJV (or NKJV), New American Standard, New Revised Standard, and English Standard Version.

The bottom line is that a Seventh-day Adventist can find support for all Seventh-day Adventist beliefs in both the Critical Text and the Received Text.

The most accurate translation of the Critical Text (United Bible Socieites' text) is the Catholic translation, The New American Bible.

The best translation of the Majority Text (which is slightly different from the text used by the KJV translators) is the New King James Version. Also Robert Young's Literal Translation is an excellent literal translation of the Majority Text.

Of course things are changed in the NIV from what you find in the KJV. I don't think anyone who's knowledgeable in the texts would deny this fact.

I am no great fan of the NIV, and I do see some problems with it-- primarily at Hebrews 9-- but it is not true that the NIV denies the deity of Jesus Christ.

I'm a very strong believer in the deity of Christ and have examined all these translation in minute detail.

If anyone thinks that the NIV denies the deity of Christ, let them compare the NIV with the KJV at Titus 2: 13 and 2 Peter 1: 1.

In both those verses the NIV calls Jesus "God," whereas the KJV merely calls Jesus "Savior." The only correct way to translate those verses is that Jesus Christ is "our great God and Savior," and "our God and Savior."

You can prove from the NIV that Jesus is God in many ways, including John 8: 58.

The bottom line is that the NIV has problems, but denying that Christ is God is not one of them.

I use the NIV quite a bit, but I never use it by itself. I always compare it to the Majority Greek Text and to many other good translations. In the vast majority of verses, the NIV is a good and reliable translation, but it's always best to use 3 or 4 translations.

There is no perfect translation. It doesn't exist. But the important point is that if a person studies any of them (even the NWT) the Holy Spirit can use that text to bring a person to faith in God and to salvation. All of them-- despite some real differences in detail-- tell the same 'old, old story of Jesus and His love."

The Textus Receptus was the Bible of early Eastern Christianity. Later it was adopted as the official text of the Greek Catholic Church. There were local reasons which contributed to this result. But, probably, far greater reasons will be found in the fact that the Received Text had authority enough to become, either in itself or by its translation, the Bible of the great Syrian Church; of the Waldensian Church of northern Italy; of the Gallic Church in southern France; and of the Celtic Church in Scotland and Ireland; as well as the official Bible of the Greek Catholic Church.
All these churches, some earlier, some later, were in opposition to the Church of Rome and at a time when the Received Text and these Bibles of the Constantine type were rivals. They, as represented in their descendants, are rivals to this day. The Church of Rome built on the Eusebio-Origen type of Bible; these others built on the Received Text. Therefore, because they themselves believed that the Received Text was the true apostolic Bible, and further, because the Church of Rome arrogated to itself the power to choose a Bible which bore the marks of systematic depravation, we have the testimony of these five churches to the authenticity and the apostolicity of the Received Text.



There are other extant Greek texts which are referred to as the 'Minority Texts' simply because they represent only about 5% of existing manuscripts. Another 5% are Neutral Texts: sometimes agreeing with the majority and at others with the minority. The 'Minority Texts' are also known as the Alexandrian Texts because they were produced in Alexandria in Egypt. The Minority Texts were rejected by the early Christians and also by all the Protestant Reformers of the 16th and 17th centuries. The Reformers, who were well aware of the existence of the Minority Texts, considered them unfit for translation purposes. These are very important points to bear in mind. Why did the early Christians and the Protestant Reformers reject the Minority Texts?

The answer is:
The Minority Texts were the work of unbelieving Egyptian scribes who did not accept the Bible as the Word of God or JESUS as the SON of GOD!
The Minority Texts abound with alterations, often a single manuscript being amended by several different scribes over a period of many years; something the Aaronic priests and Masorites would never have tolerated when making copies of the Scriptures.
The Minority Texts omit approximately 200 verses from the Scriptures. This is equivalent to 1st and 2nd Peter. Pause and consider that stunning fact!
The Minority Texts contradict themselves in hundreds of places.
The Minority Texts are doctrinally weak and often dangerously incorrect.

Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph)
This codex was produced in the 4th century. In his book Let's Weigh the Evidence, Barry Burton writes of Codex Sinaiticus: Quote: "The Sinaiticus is a manuscript that was found in 1844 in a trash pile in St.Catherine's Monastery near Mt. Sinai, by a man named Mr Tischendorf. It contains nearly all of the New Testament plus it adds the 'Shepherd of Hermes' and the 'Epistle of Barnabas' to the New Testament. The Sinaiticus is extremely unreliable, proven by examining the manuscript itself. John Burgon spent years examining every available manuscript of the New Testament. He writes about Sinaiticus...

'On many occasions 10, 20, 30, 40 words are dropped through very carelessness. Letters, words or even whole sentences are frequently written twice over, or begun and immediately cancelled; while that gross blunder, whereby a clause is omitted because it happens to end in the same words as the clause preceding, occurs no less than 115 times in the New Testament.
THAT'S NOT ALL!
On nearly every page of the manuscript there are corrections and revisions, done by 10 different people. Some of these corrections were made about the same time that it was copied, but most of them were made in the 6th and 7th century.
… Phillip Mauro, a brilliant lawyer who was admitted to the bar of the US Supreme Court in April 1892, wrote a book called "Which Version" in the early 1900s. He writes concerning the Sinaiticus… 'From these facts, therefore, we declare: first that the impurity of the Codex Sinaiticus, in every part of it, was fully recognized by those who were best acquainted with it, and that from the very beginning until the time when it was finally cast aside as worthless for any practical purpose.' " (Ref:C1)


In his excellent book An Understandable History Of The Bible, Rev. Samuel Gipp writes of Codex Sinaiticus: Quote: "One of the MSS is called Sinaiticus and is represented by the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet, Aleph. This MS from all outward appearances looks very beautiful. It is written in book form (codex) on vellum. It contains 147 1/2 leaves. The pages are 15" by 13 1/2" with four columns of 48 lines per page. It contains many spurious books such as the 'Shepherd of Hermes,' the 'Epistle of Barnabas' and even the Didache.


The great Greek scholar, Dr Scrivener, points this out in his historic work A Full Collation of the Codex Sinaiticus. He speaks of correctional alterations made to the MS: 'The Codex is covered with such alterations... brought in by at least ten different revisers, some of them systematically spread over every page, others occasional or limited to separated portions of the MS, many of these being contemporaneous with the first writer, but the greater part belonging to the sixth or seventh century.' " (Ref:B5)

Codex Vaticanus (B)
The second major manuscript of the Minority Text is known as Codex Vaticanus, often referred to as 'B'. This codex was also produced in the 4th century. It was found over a thousand years later in 1481 in the Vatican library in Rome, where it is currently held. It is written on expensive vellum, a fine parchment originally from the skin of calf or antelope. Some authorities claim that it was one of a batch of 50 Bibles ordered from Egypt by the Roman Emperor Constantine; hence its beautiful appearance and the expensive skins which were used for its pages. But alas! this manuscript, like its corrupt Egyptian partner Sinaiticus (Aleph) is also riddled with omissions, insertions and amendments.


Of Codex Vaticanus Samuel Gipp writes on page 72: Quote: "This codex omits many portions of Scripture vital to Christian doctrine. Vaticanus omits Genesis 1.1 through Genesis 46:28; Psalms 106 through 138; Matthew 16:2,3; Romans 16:24; the Pauline Pastoral Epistles; Revelation; and everything in Hebrews after 9:14.

It seems suspicious indeed that a MS possessed by the Roman Catholic church omits the portion of the book of Hebrews which exposes the 'mass' as totally useless (Please read Hebrews 10:10-12). The 'mass' in conjunction with the false doctrine of purgatory go hand-in-hand to form a perpetual money making machine for Rome. Without one or the other, the Roman Catholic Church would go broke!

It also omits portions of the Scripture telling of the creation (Genesis), the prophetic details of the crucifixion (Psalm 22), and, of course, the portion which prophesies of the destruction of Babylon (Rome), the great whore of Revelation chapter 17.

Vaticanus , though intact physically, is found to be in poor literary quality. Dr Martin declares, 'B' exhibits numerous places where the scribe has written the same word or phrase twice in succession. Dr J Smythe states, 'From one end to the other, the whole manuscript has been travelled over by the pen of some… scribe of about the tenth century.' If Vaticanus was considered a trustworthy text originally, the mass of corrections and scribal changes obviously render its testimony highly suspicious and questionable."


Rev. Gipp continues on page 73: Quote: "The corrupt and unreliable nature of these two MSS (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus) is best summed up by one who has thoroughly examined them, John W Burgon: 'The impurity of the text exhibited by these codices is not a question of opinion but fact...In the Gospels alone, Codex B(Vatican) leaves out words or whole clauses no less than 1,491 times. It bears traces of careless transcriptions on every page…

If we are to be thorough and discriminatory in our evaluation of the true New Testament text, then we must not -- we cannot -- overlook these facts.' How did these MSS come into being? How did it happen that they should be beautiful to the eye, yet within contain such vile and devastating corruption? It seems that these uncial MSS along with the papyrus MSS included in this category all resulted from a revision of the true, or Universal Text. This revision was enacted in Egypt by Egyptian scribes! " (Ref:B6)


Rev. Gipp continues: Quote: "So we see that once a pure copy of the Universal Text (Textus Receptus) had been carried down into Egypt, it was recopied. During the process of this recopying, it was revised by men who did not revere it as truly the Word of God. This text was examined by the critical eye of Greek philosophy and Egyptian morals. These men saw nothing wrong with putting the Book in subjection to their opinion instead of their opinion being in subjection to the book. This process produced a text which was local to the educational centre of Alexandria, Egypt. This text went no further than southern Italy where the Roman Catholic Church found its unstable character perfect for overthrowing the true Word of God which was being used universally by the true Christians." (Ref:B7)


The Westminster Dictionary of the Bible has this to say about Codex Vaticanus (B) on page 624 under the article Versions. Quote: " It should be noted, however, that there is no prominent Biblical MS. in which there occur such gross cases of misspelling, faulty grammar, and omission, as in B." (Ref:H2)


Barry Burton comments further: Quote: "For one thing…Vaticanus and Sinaiticus disagree with each other over 3000 times in the gospels alone…
Facts about the Vaticanus.

"It was written on fine vellum (tanned animal skins) and remains in excellent condition. It was found in the Vatican Library in 1481 AD. In spite of being in excellent condition, it omits Genesis 1:1-Gen.46:28, Psalm 106-138, Matt.16:2-3, the Pauline pastoral Epistles, Hebrews 9:14-13:25, and all of Revelation. These parts were probably left out on purpose."

"Besides all that - in the gospels alone it leaves out 237 words, 452 clauses and 748 whole sentences, which hundreds of later copies agree together as having the same words in the same places, the same clauses in the same places and the same sentences in the same places... The Vaticanus was available to the translators of the King James Bible, but they did not use it because they knew it is unreliable." (Ref:C2)


Dean Burgon comments on Codices Sinaiticus (Aleph)and Vaticanus. Quote: "Compromise of any sort between the two conflicting parties, is impossible; for they simply contradict one another. Codd.B and Aleph are either amongst the purist of manuscripts,- or else they are among the very foulest. The Text of Drs.Westcott and Hort is either the very best which has ever appeared,- or else it is the very worst; the nearest to the sacred Autographs,- or furthest from them."… "There is no room for both opinions; and there cannot exist any middle view." (Ref: P3)



Those Greek manuscripts were manipulated by Gnostics such as Origen.



You can be saved using any Bible, but for doctrinal purposes, these new translations just don't cut it.

The best Bible to study is any based on the Textus Receptus, which means the KJV for us English speakers.




Isn't one of the 3 Angels' messages to come out of Babylon? Why would a Seventh-day Adventist read a Catholic Bible?



In his book Final Authority author William P Grady says this concerning the NKJV: "From 1611 to 1881, God's foot soldiers wielded KJV swords while defending spiritual barley fields against Jesuits armed with Douay-Rheims Versions. Their grip grew tighter from 1881-1974 as one Alexandrian impostor after another was driven from the field.
Suddenly, a profit-oriented corporation (the same crown who manufactured the enemies swords) would prevail upon the church to believe that the Holy Spirit had abruptly ordered a weapon change - in the very heat of the battle!
Their corrupt rendering of Romans 1:25 says it best. Instead of the KJV's 'changed' we read, who 'exchanged the truth of God for a lie.' A true believer will never exchange his KJV for a NKJV. The reason for this resistance is the same today as it was in Bible days. With his very life at stake, the grip of the ancient warrior was so intense that warm water was often needed at battle's end to literally pry the weapon from his cramped hands. A person with an ounce of spiritual discernment can see that He who 'is not the author of confusion' would never pick such timing to introduce yet another English revision! The outstanding distinction of a spiritual warrior will always be that, 'his hand clave unto the sword' …

The truth of the matter is that the New King James Version represents Satan's ultimate deception to oppose God's remnant in the closing days of the New Testament age . Having enlisted the lukewarm materialist with his NIV, the devil sets a trap for the diligent soul winner with the NKJV. Although his worldly counterparts embraced the oldest is best theory of manuscript evidences, the true Bible believer refused to abandon the Majority Text, retaining the Divine commendation of, 'thou has kept my word.' Thus we find Satan attempting to wean him away from his Authorised Version with the deceitful half-step of a generic look-alike, TRANSLATED FROM THE TRUSTWORTHY TEXTUS RECEPTUS! …

Conservative estimates of the total translation changes in the NKJV are generally put at over 100,000! This is an average of 82 changes for each of the 1219 pages in the NKJV…Along this line of abuse, the most shocking revelation about the 'New' King James Version is that it is literally laced with 'old' readings from the Revised Standard and New American Standard Versions. This revival of Alexandrian readings is one of the best-kept secrets of the decade. Whenever there is a marked departure from the text of the KJV, the alternative reading is frequently taken from either the RSV, NASV, or oftentimes, both. For instance, in the first chapter of John's Gospel, there are 51 verses. Of this total, 45 (or 88%) have been altered by the NKJV. Among this number, 34 (75%) exhibit a distinct RSV or NASV reading while 6 show a partial reading. Only 5 (15%) appear unique to the NKJV." (Ref:E2)

Not speaking of translations but of the underlying Critical Text itself. Can you name any basic belief of SDAs that can't be supported by an accurate translation of the Critical Text?

What doctrine of the Bible is fundamentally affected by studying from the New American Bible or the English Standard Bible, for instance?

(By the way, when I study with people, I prefer using the KJV. Why? Because it is still my favorite Bible and I find that it's the translation that many people trust or rely on.)

Interesting note re: the NKJV. I had one as my principal Bible for 2 years, while the binding lasted.

Funny but I just didn't like it as much as my regular KJV that I was used to. It is not merely in updated language, it is a different translation. For me it just didn't work, but I couldn't really put a finger on why.

Seventh-day Adventist study lessons written for Catholics use the Catholic Bible. I've studied with Catholics, using their Catholic Bibles, and all of the fundamental teaching of their Bibles is the same as a Protestant Bible.

Did you know that all of the SDA colleges and universities train our ministers by using the United Bible Societies Greek text?

I am just saying that the New American Bible is the most faithful translation of the New Testament's Critical Greek text. So if anyone who does not know Greek wants to compare the Critical text with the Received Text, the New American Bible is useful in helping them see the differences between those major texts.

Coming out of Babylon does not mean that the Catholics have not produced good translations of the Bible. As Ellen White has said, God still has many honest, good people in the Catholic church.

Do you know of any part of the New American Bible that is not accurately translated?

Of course the Catholic Bible contains the Biblical Apocryphal books, which I do not believe are inspired of God, but then the original KJV also included these books.

Again, I am not arguing that we ought to change from using the KJV to using the Catholic Bible. I am simply pointing out that Catholic scholars have produced an excellent, accurate translation of the Critical text.

I feel the same way. In spite of having over 60 different translations, and reading them often, I keep coming back to the KJV.

Actually-- and I wouldn't want this to be misunderstood-- I feel a spiritual blessing when studying the KJV that I don't experience when I study out of the others.

I'm really not sure why. Strange isn't it? I don't know how to account for it but do have some ideas. Just not sure if they are valid.

I know what you mean, although as I said, I don't know why. There seems to be a certain "je ne sais quoi" about it.

And, like you, I have a collection of other translations that I mainly use when writing for others because of simplicity or clearness of a certain verse. But the main Biblical principle of a verse seems to "stick" better with me in the old familiar KJV. I remember it better.

I don't know why it does. It just does.

The Vaticanus (B) in Hebrews stops at the end of Hebrews 9: 14. It contains James through Jude. It does not contain the Apocalypse.

No one knows why it does not contain these sections of the Bible. It is not unusual for ancient manuscripts to be deficient.

It should be kept in mind, though, that many other ancient manuscripts of the NT in the Vatican contain the whole book of Hebrews as well as the book of Revelation.

You will notice below (#5 to 8) that many Roman Catholic Bibles translate Hebrews 10: 10-12 exactly the same as the KJV--

(1) Hebrews 10:10-12 (King James Version)

10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:

12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;


(2) NASB--

10 By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

11 Every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins;

12 but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, SAT DOWN AT THE RIGHT HAND OF GOD,

(3) Roman Catholic Confraternity translation (from the Latin text)--

10 It is in this "will" that we have been sanctified through this offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

11 And every priest indeed stands daily ministering, and often offering this same sacrifices, which can never take away sins;

12 but Jesus, having offered one sacrifice for sin, has taken his seat forever at the right hand of God.

(4)The New American (Catholic)

10 By this "will," we have been consecrated through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

11) Every priest stands daily at his ministry, offering frequently those same sacrifices that can never take away sins.

12 But this one offered one sacrifice for sins, and took his seat forever at the right hand of God.

5) Christian Community Bible (Roman Catholic):

v. 12 Christ has offered for all times a single sacrifice for sin and has taken his seat at the right hand of God.

6) Revised English Bible (Roman Catholic Edition):

v. 12 Christ, having offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, took his seat at God's right hand.

7) New Revised Standard Version (Roman Catholic Edition):

v. 12 But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat sat down at the right hand of God.

8) Good News Bible (Roman Catholic Edition):

v. 12 Christ, however, offered one sacrifice for sins, an offering that is effective forever, and then he sat down at the right side of God.

In Westcott's commentary on this verse, he wrote, "The sacrifice was efficacious forever, through all time, being appropriated by each believer (v. 14). The connection of eis to dienekes with the following ekathisen (for ever sat down) is contrary to the usage of the Epistle; it obscures the idea of the perpetual efficacy of Christ's one sacrifice..." (The Epistle To the Hebrews, The Greek Text With Notes and Essays, Brooke Foss Westcott, p. 314.)

See also Henri Alford's commentary where he argues well that "forever" should be placed in connection with the last phrase of the verse rather than with the first part. Both readings are grammatically correct, so as far as the rules of translation are concerned, it could read either way.

I am very interested in textual studies and translation. For about 10 years, I've been making a word-for-word comparison of about 15 different printed Greek texts, and looking carefully at the manuscript evidence for all the variants.

Give me several examples on the basis of the Critical text, or the original ancient Greek manuscripts, which demonstrate that these Egyptian scribed altered the NT in regard to Jesus being the Son of God.

Please give the manuscript name or number, and give the verse.

What do you believe concerning 1 John 5: 7 as given in the KJV?

Also John 5: 4?

In your estimation, are these texts part of the original manuscripts as written by the apostle?

These, as well as the others that are cited as examples, deserve to be looked at carefully and individually in order to see what the manuscript evidence is. Would you like to examine the manuscript evidence and see the reasoning behind some of the most significant changes that have been made?

I prefer the readings of the KJV, so I am not trying to persuade you or anyone else to oppose the KJV or to believe that the NIV is correct.

In the past wars have been fought over the Bible. The church of the middle ages
banned the Bible. Today, it seems that everyone is satisfied and has a Bible.
Matt 4:4, Is. 8:20, Rev. 22:18.

With modern Greek scholarship many of the verses in the modern versions have
better translation than in the older versions. But, if the grammar is improved
does that necessarily mean that the context has to be improved.

The original manuscripts have been lost and all we have is copies of copies. The
oldest manuscripts originate from the Alexandrian texts. However, there are
thousands (1900) of versions in almost every language from the traditional texts.
Therefore, it should be possible to bring together the texts from every language
and compare them to see what what the majority of them agree.

In the Alexandrian and Western versions there are verses missing that are in the
traditional texts. There are letters written between church fathers that are older
than the Alexandrian and Western texts and include these missing verses. This is
another verification of the traditional texts of which the King James 1611
originated.

Every single Bible in the world that was written before 1940 except the Catholic
and Jesuit Bible came from the traditional Received Texts that led to the King
James Version.

The Pope has declared that the Latin Vulgate version is infallable. The Douay
(Jesuit) version was written to counteract the reformation.

The Alexandrian texts has led to the host of new Bibles in all languages. The
Codex Aleph is one of the oldest, as with the Latin version & vulgate. But old
does not necessarily mean good.

Kurt Aland, who is coeditor of both of the most widely used critical Greek texts
and who is certainly the leading textual scholar on the European continent,
proposes that the text of p75 and B (of the Alexandrian texts) represents a
revision of a local text of Egypt which was enforced as the dominant text in that
particular ecclesiastical province. - Aland in "The Bible in Modern Scholarship',
p.336. Cf. also 'Novum Testamentum, IX (April 1967), p.91.

David Otis Fuller, D.D., says fundamentally, there are only two streams of Bibles.
The first stream which carried the Received Text in Hebrew and Greek, precious
manuscripts were preserved by such as the church at Pella in Palestine where
Christians fled, when in 70 A.D. the Romans destroyed Jerusalem; by the Syrian
Church of Antioch which produced eminent scholarship; by the Italic Church in
northern Italy; and also at the same time by the Gallic Church in southern France
and by the Celtic Church in Great Britain; by the pre-Waldensian, the Waldensian
and the churches of the Reformation. These manuscripts have in agreement with
them, by far the vast majority of copies of the original text. So vast is this
majority that even enemies of the Received Text (Textus Recepticus) admit that
nineteen-twentieths of all Greek manuscripts are of this class. - Les Garrett,
1982, Which Bible Can We Trust? Christian Centre Press, p.64.

The original manuscripts came from Syria, Jerusalem where the Apostles preached.
The Christians in northern Italy previously received their manuscripts from the
middle east and not from Rome. This caused a problem between the Ostrogoths and
Roma.

The second stream is a small one of a very few manuscripts. These last manuscripts
are represented:
a. In Greek:- The Vatican MS., or Codex B (prominent for counter-reformation), in
the library at Rome; and the Sinaitic, or Codex Aleph (found in 1844, yougest find
and oldest document).
b. In Latin:- The Vulgate or Latin Bible of Jerome (383 AD).
c. In English:- The Jesuit Bible of 1582, which later with vast changes is seen in
the Douay, or Catholic Bible.
d. In English again:- In many modern Bibles.

So the present controversy between the King James Bible in English and the modern
versions is the same old contest fought out between the early church and rival
sects; and later, between the Waldenses and the Papists from the fourth to the
thirteenth centuries; and later still between the Reformers and the Jesuits in the
sixteenth century. - "Which Bible" and "True and False", edited by David Otis
Fuller.

"We need to understand, that many of the new translations are taken from old
manuscripts. People think that these are more reliable. In actual fact they are
saying, that a manuscript found in a waste paper basket in a cave in Mt. Sinai and
questionable manuscripts from Alexandria in Egypt, are more reliable than the
Received Text."- Les Garrett, 1982, Which Bible Can We Trust? p.15.

Origen, being a textual critic, is supposed to have corrected numerous portions of
the sacred manuscripts. Evidence to the contrary shows he changed them to agree
with his own human philosophy of mystical and allegorical ideas. Thus, through
deceptive scholarship of this kind, certain manuscripts became corrupt.- Les
Garrett, 1982, Which Bible Can We Trust? p.16. Origen, who believed that man is
divine, is praised in Masonic writing.

1) From the birth of Christ to 400 AD Gnostic gospels and other writings were
written. Paul makes mention of this in: 2 Cor. 2:17.
2) In 331 AD Constantine ordered that an 'ecumenical Bible' be written. Eusebius, a follower of Origen, was
assigned to direct this task. Eusebius rejected the deity of Christ and claimed that Christ was a created being. This error is called the Arian heresy(pantheism,etc). The early Christians rejected these manuscripts and were placed in a library only to be dug up as ancient manuscripts. There were about 50 copies
made by Eusebius and were distributed and ended up in mainly to areas - Rome and Alexandria.
Rome claims to be anti-arian and has said to have fought wars against the arians. There is no evidence that the nations that were destroyed because they were arians were actually arian because we have none of their writings. Only Roman Catholicism claims that they were arian. The gospel to the gouyim (Catholicism) is not arian but the insider esoteric gospel is arian. We know this because the Pope has declared the Latin Vulgate an infallable bible but this version is arian - it removes the deity of Jesus Christ.
3) In 1481 AD the Vatican manuscript was discovered in the Vatican library. This manuscript repeatedly casts aside the deity of Christ. It reflects the Arianism of Origen and is thought by some to be one of the surviving manuscripts done by Eusebius at the command of Constantine. The date of its writing coincides with the 'ecumenical Bible' of Constantine. Interesting, it was found just in time to counter the reformation. The reformation was using the Received Text. If this is true, then the truth had been kept from virtually all generations since Christ up until 1481.
4) In 1844 AD The Sinaitic manuscript was discovered at Mt. Sinai in the monastery of Saint Catherine. It agrees closely with the Vatican manuscript and minimizes the deity of Christ and is Arian in nature. These two manuscripts were probably two of the fifty that were written for Constantine.
5) In 1881 AD The Westcott and Hort Greek Text was introduced. This text departed from the Textus Receptus and follows the Vatican and even more than the Sinaitic corruptions. The Jehovah's Witness Bible entitled the "New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures' was translated from the text of Westcott and Hort. The JW's had the KJV and modified it.
"It must be emphasized that the argument is not between an ancient text and a
recent one, but between two ancient forms of the text, one of which was rejected
and the other adopted and preserved by the Church as a whole and remaining in
common use for more than fifteen centuries." - Les Garrett, 1982, Which Bible Can
We Trust? p.46.

Tyndale used the Received Text in his Bible and said to the Pope, "If God spare my
life, before many years I will cause a boy that driveth a plough to know more of
the Scriptures than thou doest." - God Wrote Only One Bible, Jasper James Ray.

*****The argument is not a KJV versus other versions, it is the "Received Text"
versus other manuscripts (the Vatican Codex B and the Siniatic Codex Aleph).*****
In Bible in any language in the world that existed before 1900 was based on the Received Text.
The Jesuits were called to help and they said, "We must undermine the Bible of the Protestants and detroy their teachings." ...The Queen of England realizing the damage the Jesuit Bible would do, sent to Europe for Beza, who was with JohnCalvin, to help...Thomas Cartwright...With one hand he took hold of all the Greek
manuscripts and with the other hand he took hold of all the Latin manuscripts from the Received Text, and he hit the Jesuit Bible blow after blow...Finally the Spanish Armada came against England with 136 armed ships, some with 50 cannons...England could only gather thirty ships and these were lead by Sir Francis Drake. Freak storms came down the English Channel and the Spanish ships were found wrecked right up to the Scottish coast and England became a great sea power."- Les Garrett, 1982, Which Bible Can We Trust? p.60.

Jesuit View of the Bible: "Then the Bible, that serpent which with head erect and eyes flashing threatens us with its venom while it trails along the ground, shall be changed into a rod as soon as we are able to seize it... for three centuries past this cruel asp has left us no response. You well know with what folds it
entwines us and with what fangs it gnaws us." - The Jesuits in History, Hector Macpherson, 1997 originally published 1900, ap.1.

Jesuit Catechism:
Q. What if the Holy Scriptures command one thing, and the Pope another contrary to
it?
A. The Holy Scriptures must be thrown aside.
Q. What is the Pope?
A. He is the Vicar of Christ, King of Kings, and Lord of Lords, and there is but
one Judgment-Seat belonging to God and the Pope.
-Roy Livesey, 1998, Understanding the New Age:World Government and World Religion,
p.104.

Regarding the Bible, Albert Pike writes: "...the absurd reading of the established Church,
taking literally the figurative, allegorical, and mythical language of a collection of Oriental books of different ages ... the folly of regarding the Hebrew books as if they had been written by the unimaginative, hard, practical intellect of the England of James the First and the bigoted stolidity of Scottish
Presbyterianism."

"The better to succeed and win partisans, the Templars sympathized with regrets
for dethroned creeds (pagan religions) and encouraged the hopes of new worships,
promising to all liberty of conscience and a new orthodoxy that should be the
synthesis of all the persecuted creeds." - Albert Pike, Morals and Dogma, 818.

"Going back to the time of the early church we find the Coptic Versions, the Latin
Versions, and the Syrian Versions. These Bibles were in circulation before the
Vaticanus was written. It is hard to see how God would allow the true text to be
hidden in the Vatican library and in a waste paper basket in a cave for one
thousand five years and to be brought to the light of day by two Cambridge
professors [Westcott & Hort] who did not even believe in the verbal inspiration of
the Scriptures." - "Which Bible" and "True and False", edited by David Otis
Fuller.

"How could Helvidius have accused Jerome of employing corrupt Greek manuscripts,
if Helvidius had not had the pure Greek manuscripts?"- Les Garrett, 1982, Which
Bible Can We Trust? p.61.

"These revised versions are based on manuscripts from Egypt that were definitely
corrupted. Both Augustine and Tertullion testified that the scribes in Africa
corrupted and changed the manuscripts." - Christian Handbook of Manuscripts, Peter
S. Ruckman.

"No sooner," writes Dean Burgon, "Was the work of Evangelists and Apostles
recognized as the necessary counterpart and complement of God's ancient Scriptures
and became the 'New Testament,' than a reception was found to be awaiting it in
the world closely resembling that which He experienced Who is the subject of its
pages. Calumny and misrepresentation, persecution and muderous hate, assailed Him
continually. And the Written Word in like manner, in the earliest age of all, was
shamefully handled by mankind. Not only was it confused through human infirmity
and misapprehension, but it became also the object of restless malice and
unsparing assualts." - Dean Burgon, Traditional Text, p.10.

In connection with Westcott and Hort's theory Dean Burgon writes:
"We oppose facts to their speculation. They exalt B and Aleph and D8 because in
their own opinions those copies are the best. They weave ingenious webs and invent
subtle theories, because their paradox of a few against the many requires
ingenuity and subtely for its support. Dr. Hort reveled in finespun theories and
technical terms, such as 'Intinsic Probability,' 'Transcriptional Probability,'
'Internal evidence of Readings,' 'Internal evidence of Documents,' which of course
connote a certain amount of evidence, but are weak pillars of a heavy
structure....Even conjectural emendation and inconsistent decrees are not
rejected. They are infected with the theorizing which spoils some of the best
German work, and with the idealism which is the bane of many academic minds
especially at Oxford and Cambridge....In contrast with this sojourn in cloudland,
we are essentially of the earth though not earthly. We are nothing if we are not
grounded in facts: Our appeal is to facts, our test lies in facts, so far as we
can we build testimonies upon testimonies and pile facts on facts. We imitate the
procedure of the courts of justice in decisions resulting from the converging
product of all evidence, when it has been cross-examined and sifted....In the
balances of these seven Tests of Truth the speculations of the Westcott and Hort
school, which have bewitched millions are 'Tekel,'
weighed in the balances and found wanting. "I am utterly disinclined to believe,"
continues Dean Burgon, "so grossly improbable does it seem - that at the end of
1800 years 995 copies out of every thousand, suppose, will prove untrustworthy;
and that the one, two, three, four, or five which remain, whose contents were till
yesterday as good as unknown, will be found to have retained the secret of what
the Holy Spirit originally inspired." What, in the meantime, is to be thought of
those blind guides - those deluded ones - who would now, if they could, persuade
us to go back to those same codices of which the Church hath already purged
herself?", The Revision Revised, p.334-335.

Burgon, utterly rejected the claims of Tischendorf (1815-74), Tregelles (1813-75),
Wescott (1825-1901), Hort (1828-92), and other contemporary scholars, who insisted
that as a result of their labours the true New Testament text had at last been
discovered after having been lost for well-nigh fifteen centuries.
"Who but those with Roman Catholic sympathies could ever be pleased with the
notion that God preserved the true New Testament text in secret for almost one
thousand years and then finally handed it over to the Roman pontiff for
safekeeping?"- Les Garrett, 1982, Which Bible Can We Trust? p.91.

Dr. Hoskier quotes the following from Dr. Salmon in his book Some Thoughts on the
Textual Criticism of the New Testament...
"Naturally Hort regarded those manuscripts as most trustworthy which give the
readings recognized by Origen; and these no doubt were the readings which in the
third century were most preferred at Alexandria. Thus Hort's method inevitably led
to the exclusive adoption of the Alexandrian text."- Our Authorized Bible
Vindicated, Benjamin G. Wilkinson, 1996.

"You will always be my friend but I can no longer ignore the criticisms. I cannot
refute them, and dear brother I have not a thing against you, but the only thing I
can do under God, is to renounce every attacment to the New American Standard
Bible." Dr. Frank Logsdon to F. Lockman, - Les Garrett, 1982, Which Bible Can We
Trust? p.236.

The Alexandrian library was world famous for its occult documents. The early
Christians who were bible based burned the old library and was a diaster to the
occult world. UNESCO decided to rebuild it in 2002 exactly as the original.

"Index of Prohibited Books" (Pope Paul IV 1599)
The early Church at Antioch used the Syrian Bible translated from Hebrew and Greek
and is older than the Masoretic text. The Waldenses had access to these writings
and in 1453 when the Turks captured Constantinople Greek scholars brought their
manuscripts to the West. - Septuagint made for Alexandria Library in 285 BC,
Vulgate 383-405.

Apocrypha (Hidden things):
Council of Trent, fourth session, 1546 "Whoever shall not receive as sacred and
canonical all these books and every part of them, as they are commonly read in the
catholic church, and are contained in the old Vulgate Latin edition, or shall
knowingly and deliberately despise the aforesaid traditions, let him be accursed."
Bewitching art: Tobias 6:4-8.
Rebuke: Mark 16:17, Acts 16:18.
Works: Tobias 12:9
Rebuke: 1 Pet. 1:18-19.
Prayer for dead: 2 Maccabees 12:43-46
Rebuke: John 1:7.

Council of Trent (1545-1563) proposed the Vulgate Latin Bible as the only authentic translation. Pope Sixtus V declared the Vulgate infallible but Clement III in 1592 ordered a better edition and 2000 changes were made.

Errors in the Vulgate
2 Tim. 3:16 - All Scripture is God-breathed.
Douay- All scripture inspired of God is profitable.
Heb.11:21 - Jacob worshipped as he leaned on top of his staff.
Vulgate- Jacob adored the top of his rod.
Rev. 22:14 - Blessed are they that wash their robes (Codex Vaticanus)
KJV - Blessed are they that do his commandments.

Ebionites
Basic Tenets: You must be a Jew to be a follower of Jesus and accept him as the
Jewish Messiah. He wasn't divine at birth, but God valued his righteousness and
allowed his sacrifice to redeem humanity's sins.
Requirements: Ebionitans contiuned to obey Jewish law. They kept kosher and took
ritual baths and men had to be circumcised.
Appeal: The faith allowed Jesus' early Jewish followers in Palestine to embrace
him without making a break from their birth identity.

Marcionites
Basic Tenets: Our world was created by the Jewish God of the Old Testament. But he
was impossibly strict and condemned all humanity. Christ, who was absolutely
unrelated to him, release Christians from his clutches.
Requirements: Marcionites had to jettison? the Old Testament and believe in two
separate Gods.
Appeal: Believers could replace the old admonitions about judgment and damnation
with a new message of love and salvation.

Gnostics
Basic Tenets: The world and our bodies were created by an incompetent lesser God,
but we contain a spark of divinity, and Jesus provided us with the knowledge to
free it.
Requirements: Followers had to have the time to pursue and incorporate this
special knowledge. Literacy may also have helped.
Appeal: Gnosticism explained the world's hardships and people's feelings of not
belonging in it but at the same time assured them that redeemption is within their
power.

Thomasines
Basic Tenets: Since creation, we have all shared divinity, Jesus teaches us to
rediscover it in us. Understanding that is more important than believing in his
atoning sacrifice.
Requirements: Thomasines were fascinated with the arcane and probably were
ascerbic and abstinent.
Appeal: The sect offered rejection of hierarchy, greater freedom of personal
expression, an openness to the role of women and a dramatically decreased sense of
guilt.

"Whenever the so-called Counter-Reformation, started by the Jesuits, gained hold
of the people, the vernacular was suppressed and the Bible kept from the laity. So
eager were the Jesuits to destroy the authority of the Bible - the paper pope of
the Protestants, as they contemptuously called - that they even did not refrain
from critizing its genuineness and historical value." Von Dobshutz, The Influence
of the Bible, p.136.

Before the English people could go the way of the Continent and be brought to
question their great English Bible, the course of their thinking must be changed.
Much had to be done to discredit, in their eyes, the Reformation - its history,
doctrines, and documents - which they looked upon as a great work of God. This
task was accomplished by those who, while working under cover, passed as friends.

In what numbers the Jesuits were at hand to bring this about, the following words,
from one qualified to know, will reveal:
"Despite all the persecution they (the Jesuits) have met with, they have not
abandoned England, where there are a greater number of Jesuits than in Italy;
there are Jesuits in all classes of society; in Parliament; among the English
clergy; among the Protestant laity, even in the higher stations. I could not
comprehend how a Jesuit could be a Protestant priest, or how a Protestant priest
could be a Jesuit; but my Confessor silenced my scruples by telling my, omnia
munda mundis, and that St. Paul became a Jew that he might save the Jews; it was
no wonder, therefore, if a Jesuit should feign himself a Protestant, for the
conversion of Protestants. But pay attention, I entreat you, to discover
concerning the nature of the religious movement in England termed Puseyism. The
English clergy were formed too much attached to their Articles of Faith to be
shaken from them. You might have employed in vain all the machines set in motion
by Bossuet and the Jansenists of France to reunite them to the Romish Church; and
so the Jesuits of England tried another plan. This was to demonstrate from histoy
and ecclesiastical antiquity the legitimacy of the usages of the English Church,
whence, through the exertions of the Jesuits concealed among its clergy, might
arise a studious attention to Christian antiquity. This was designed to occupy the
clergy in long, laborious, and abstruse investigation, and to alienate them from
their Bibles." - Desanctis, Popery and Jesuitism in Rome, pp.128, quoted in Walsh,
Secret History of Oxford Movement, p.33. Descantes was Priest at Rome, Professor
of Theology, official Theological Censor of the Inquisition.

Tractarianism (1833-1841) "Romanism is known to have recently entered the Church
of England in the disguise of Oxford Tractarianism; to have drawn off no
inconsiderable number of her clergy and members; and to have gained a footing on
British soil, from which the government and public together are unable to reject
her."

Newman (Leader of the Oxford movement who later went over to the Chuch of Rome)
wrote in 1841 to a Roman Catholic, "Only through the English Church can you act
upon the English nation. I wish, of course, our Church should be consolidated,
with and through and in your communion, for its sake, and your sake, and for the
sake of unity." Newman, Apologia, p.225. He and his associates believed that
Protestantism was Antichrist.

Faber one of the associates of Newman in the Oxford Movement, himself a brilliant
writer, said: "Protestantism is perishing: what is good in it is by God's mercy
being gathered into the garners of Rome...My whole life, God willing, shall be one
crusade against the destable and diabolical heresy of Protestantism." - J.E.
Bowden, Life of F.W. Faber, 1869, p.192.

Pusey (well known member of the Oxford movement and author of "Minor Prophets" and
"Daniel the Prophet" said: "I believe Antichrist will be infidel, and arise out of
what calls itself Protestantism, and then Rome and England will be united in one
to oppose it," - Walter Walsh, Secret History of the Oxford Movement, p.202.

Based on the ancient manuscripts (Codex Sinaticus), Wescott and Hort wrote the
Greek text upon which all modern versions is based. Most of the following quotes
are from books written by the sons of Westcott and Hort (published in 1896): The
Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott and The Life and Letters of Fenton John
Anthony Hort.

Hort as well as Westcott rejected the idea of the infallibility of the Bible, and
Hort called the doctrine of the substitutionary atonement "immoral", Westcott
denied the historicity of Genesis 1 through 3 and Hort praised Darwin, denied the
divinity of Christ, and called the Textus Receptus 'villainous' and 'vile'.
Both were members of the Broad Church (or High Church) Party of the Church of
England. They became friends during their student days at Cambridge University.
They worked for over thirty years together on the subject of the Greek text of the
New Testament.

Wescott went on to become the Bishop of Durham (England) and served for a while as
chaplain to Queen Victoria. Hort is best remembered as a Professor of Divinity at
Cambridge University.

"The beginning of an individual is precisely as inconceivable as the beginning of
a species...It certainly startles me to find you saying that you have seen no
facts which support such a view as Darwin's...But it seems to me the most probable
manner of development, and the reflections suggested by his book drove me to the
conclusion that some kind of development must be supposed." - Life, p.430.
Nov.9th 1860-Hort to MacMillan:

"Another last word on Darwin...I shall not let the subject drop in a hurry, or, to
speak more correctly, it will not let me drop. It has completely thrown me back
into natural science, not that I had ever abandoned it either in intention, or
altogether in practice. But now there is no getting rid of it any more than of a
part of oneself." (Life p.433).

Hort to Westcott:
"Have you read Darwin? How should I like to talk with you about it! In spite of
difficulties, I am inclined to think it unanswerable. In any case it is a treat to
read such a book." (Life, vol.1, p.416).

Apr.3rd, 1860-Hort to John Ellerton:
"But the book which has most engaged me is Darwin. Whatever may be thought of it,
it is a book that one is proud to be contemporary with. I must work out and
examine the argument in more detail, but at present my feeling is strong that the
theory is unanswerable. If so, it opens up a new period." (Life, vol.1, p.416).

Dec 20, 1851-Hort to John Ellerton:
"I had no idea till the last few weeks of the importance of texts, having read so
little Greek Testament, and dragged on with the villainous Textus Receptus. Think
of that vile Textus Receptus leaning entirely on later MSS; it is a blessing there
are such early ones" (Life, vol.1, p.211).

Apr.19th-Hort to Rev. John Ellerton:
"One result of our talk I may as well tell you. He (Westcott) and I are going to
edit a Greek text of the New Testament some two or three years hence, if possible.
Lachman and Tischendorf will supply rich materials, but not nearly enough; and we
hope to do a good deal with Oriental versions. Our object is to supply clergymen
generally, schools, etc., with a portable Greek text which shall not be disfigured
with Byzantine corruptions." (Life, vol.1, p.250).

Sept 29th-Westcott to Hort:
"AS to our proposed recension of the New Testament text, our object would be, I
suppose, to prepare a text for common and general use...With such an end in view,
would it not be best to introduce only certain emendations into the received text,
and to note in the margin such as seem likely or noticeable - after Griesbach's
manner?
They suggested small changes with comments in the margin so that the public would
not be alarmed with drastic and immediate changes.
"I feel most keenly the disgrace of circulating what I feel to be falsified copies
of Holy Scripture (a reference to the AV?) and am most anxious to provide
something to replace them. This cannot be any text resting solely on our own
judgment, even if we were not too inexperienced to make one; but it must be
supported by a clear and obvious preponderance of evidence. The margin will give
ample scope for our own ingenuity or principles...my wish would be to leave the
popular received text except where it is clearly wrong." - Life, vol.1, p.228.
The statement which immediately follows Hort's describing the sacred text as
"vile" is most revealing.

"Westcott, Gorham, C.B.Scott, Benson, Bradshaw, Laurd, etc. and I have started a
society for the investigation of ghosts and all supernatural appearances, and
effects, being all disposed to believe that such things really exist, and ought to
be discriminated from hoaxes and mere subjective delusions; we shall be happy to
obtain any good accounts well authenticated with names. Westcott is drawing up a
schedule of questions. Cope calls us the '[censored] and Bull Club;' our own temporary
name is the "Ghostly Guild." - Life, vol.1, p.211.

In 1882 the Society for Psychical Research was founded. In effect it was a
combination of those groups already working independently in the investigation of
spiritualism and other pyshic phenomena (telepathy, clairvoyance, etc). Of these
the most important was that centered round Henry Sidgwick, Frederic Myers and
Edmund Gurnery, all Fellows of Trinity College, Cambridge, and deriving its
inspiration from the Cambridge University Ghost Society, founded by no less a
person than Edward White Benson, the future Archbishop of Canterbury. Darwin also
attended.

The Society For Psychical Research is also the society that runs the esoteric side
of th new age movement today.The Society For Psychical Research directly succeeded
the Cambridge Ghost Society.

The Society for Psychical Research: An Outline of its History, written in 1948 by
the President, W.H. Salter, provides the following record:
"Among the numerous persons and groups who in the middle of the nineteenth century
were making enquiries into psychical occurences may be mentioned a society from
which our own can claim direct descent. In the Life of Edward White Benson,
Archbishop of Canterbury, by his on A.C. Benson, will be found, under the year
1851-2, the following paragraph:
"Among my father's diversions at Cambridge was the foundation of a 'Ghost
Society,' the forerunner of the Psychical Society [meaning the S.P.R.] for the
investigation of the supernatural. Lightfoot, Westcott and Hort were among the
members. He was then, as always, more interested in psychical phenomena than he
cared to admit."

"Lightfoot and Westcott both became bishops, and Hort Professor of Divinity. The
S.P.R. has hardly lived up to the standard of ecclesiastical eminence set by the
parent society." - W.H.Salter, The Society For Psychical Research: An Outline of
its History, 1948, p.5.

"The evolution from traditional mediumship to contemporary channeling has been
gradual. The original spiritualism had its start in 1848...Organizations like the
Society for Psychical Research in Britain were formed...When Russian-born Helena
Petrovna Blavatsky found Theosophy in 1875, the slow transition toward modern
channeling began... her two chief works, Isis Unveiled, and The Secret Doctrine
laid the foundation for the modern New Age belief system." - Elliot Miller, 1989,
Crash Course on the New Age.

Hort a member of a Secret Society?
"Yet he found time to attend meetings of the various societies, and in June joined
the mysterious company of the 'Apostles.' He remained always a grateful and loyal
member of the Secret Club, which has now [ca. 1896] become famous for the number
of distinguished men who have belonged to it. In his time the Club was in a manner
reinvigorated, and he was mainly responsible for the wording of the oath which
binds the members to a conspiracy of silence." - The Life and Letters of F.J.A.
Hort, vol.1, p.170.

1854-Hort to Rev. John Ellerton
"I agree with you in thinking it a pity that Maurice verbally repudiates
purgatory, but I fully and unwaveringly agree with him in the three cardinal
points of the controversy: 1)that eternity is independent of duration; 2) that the
power of repentance is not limited to this life; 3) that it is not revealed
whether or not all will ultimately repent. The modern denial of the second has, I
suppose had more to do with the despiritualizing of theology then almost anything
that could be named." - ibid, p.275.

While advising a young student he wrote:
"The idea of purgation, of cleansing as by fire, seems to me inseparable from what
the Bible teaches us of the Divine chastisements; and, though little is directly
said respecting the future state, it seems to me incredible that the Divine
chastisements should in this respect change their character when this visible life
is ended. "I do not hold it contradictory to the Article to think that the
condemned doctrine has not been wholly injurious, inasmuch as it has kept alive
some sort of belief in a great and important truth." - ibid., vol.2, p.336.

Hort on the atonement:
"I think I mentioned to you before Campbell's book on the Atonement, which is
invaluable as far as it goes; but unluckily he knows nothing except Protestant
theology." - Life, vol.1, p.322.

Oct. 15th, 1860-Hort to Westcott:
"I entirely agree - correcting one word - with what you there say on the
Atonement, having for many years believed that "the absolute union of the
Christian (or rather, of man) with Christ Himself" is the spiritual truth of which
the popular doctrine of substitution is an immoral and material
counterfeit...Certainly nothing can be more unscriptural than the modern limiting
of Christ's bearing our sins and sufferings to His death; but indeed that is only
one aspect of an almost universal heresy." - Life, vol.1, p.430.

May 14 1870 - Hort to Rev. J.L.I. Davies:
"No rational being doubts the need of a revised Bible; and the popular practical
objections are worthless. Yet I have an increasing feeling in favour of delay. Of
course, no revision can be final, and it would be absurd to wait for perfection.
But the criticism of both Testaments in text and interpretation alike, appears to
me to be just now in that chaotic state (in Germany hardly if at all less than in
England), that the results of immediate revision would be peculiarly
unsatisfactory. I John 5:7 might be got rid of in a month; and if that were done,
I should prefer to wait a few years." - Life, vol.2, p.128.
(1 John 5:7 - For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word,
and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.)

Aug.14th 1860-Hort to Wescott
"It is of course true that we can only know God through human forms, but then I
think the whole Bible echoes the language of Genesis 1:27 and so assures us that
human forms are divine forms."

Oct.17th-Hort to Westcott:
"I have been persuaded for many years that Mary-worship and 'Jesus'-worship have
very much in common in their causes and their results. Perhaps the whole question
may be said to be involved in the true idea of mediation, which is almost
universally corrupted in one or both of two opposite directions. On the one hand
we speak and think as if there were no real bringing near, such as the NT tells
of, but only an interposition between two permanently distant objects. On the
other we condemn all secondary human mediators as injurious to the one, and shut
our eyes to the indestructible fact of existing human mediation which is to be
found everywhere. But this last error can hardly be expelled till Protestants
unlearn the crazy horror of the idea of Priesthood." - Life, vol.2, p.49.

Sept.27th 1865-Westcott:
"I have been trying to recall my impressions of La Salette (a marian shrine). I
wish I could see to what forgotten truth Mariolatry bears witness; and how we can
practically set forth the teaching of the miracles".

Nov.17th-Westcott to Rev. Benson:
"As far as I could judge, the 'idea' of La Salette was that of God revealing
Himself now, and not in one form but in many." - Life, Vol.1, p.251.

1858 Oct. 21st-Hort to Rev. Rowland and Williams:
"There are, I fear, still more serious differences between us on the subject of
authority, and especially the authority of the Bible...If this primary objection
were removed, and I could feel our differences to be only of degree, I should
still hesitate to take part in the proposed scheme... The errors and prejudices,
which we agree in wishing to remove, can surely be more wholesomely and also more
effectually reached by individual efforts of an indirect kind than by combined
open assault. At present very many orthodox but rational men are being unawares
acted upon by influences which will assuredly bear good fruit in due time if is
allowed to go on quitely; but I fear that a premature crisis would frighten back
many into the merest traditionalism." - Life, vol.1, p.400.

May 29th-Westcott to Hort:
"though I think that Convocation is not competent to initiate such a measure, yet
I feel that as 'we three' are together it would be wrong not to 'make the best of
it' as Lightfoot says. Indeed, there is a very fair prospect of good work, though
neither with this body nor with any body likely to be formed now could a complete
textual revision be possible. There is some hope that alternative readings might
find a place in the margin." - Life, vol.1, p.390.

Sometimes 'alternative' translations (traditional TR) are found in the margins.
Then, in following versions those marginal notes are axed away. And so the Bible
changes. From the middle of the book of Acts in an NIV bible and the number of
words till the end of revelation, that will roughly equal the number of words gone
- 60,000.

June 4th-Westcott to Lightfoot:
"Ought we not to have a conference before the first meeting for Revision? There
are many points on which it is important that we should agree. The rules though
liberal are vague, and the interpretation of them will depend upon decided action
at first." - Life, vol.1, p.391.

July 7, 1870 - Hort:
"It is quite impossible to judge the value of what appear to be trifling
alterations merely by reading them one after another. Taken together, they have
often important bearings which few would think of at first...The difference
between a picture say of Raffaelle and a feeble copy of it is made up of a number
of trivial differences...We have successfully resisted being warned off dangerous
ground, where the needs of revision required that it should not be shirked... It
is, one can hardly doubt, the beginning of a new period in Church history. So far
the angry objectors have reason for their astonishment." - Life, p.138.

Arthur Balfour, who was a member of Hort's Apostles, Westcott's Eranus (Hort
called this group a senior Apostles club), as well as President of the S.P.R.,
soon became the Prime Minister of England and instrumental in the first League of
Nations.

Balfour not only headed the S.P.R., holding seances at his home, but initiated a
group called 'The Synthetic Society' whose goal was to create a 'one world
religion'. He invited Frederic Myers of the S.P.R. to join and together they
created "The preamble of all religions." It included the dogma, "departed spirits
can communicate." - www.historist.com.

The following extracts are from the book 'Which Bible' by Dr. David Otis Fuller:-
Hort writes to Rev. Rowland Williams, October 21, 1858: "Further I agree with them
(authors of Essays and Reviews) in condemning many specific doctrines of the
popular theology... Evangelicals seem to me perverted rather than untrue. There
are, I fear, still more serious differences between us on the subject of
authority, and especially the authority of the Bible."

Westcott writes from France to his fiancee, 1847: "After leaving the monastery, we
shaped our course to a little oratory which we discovered on the summit of a
neighboring hill...Fortunately we found the door open. It is very small, with one
kneeling-place; and behind a screen was a 'Pieta' the size of life (i.e. a Virgin
and dead Christ)... Had I been alone I could have knelt there for hours."

Wescott writes to the Archbishop of Canterbury on Old Testament criticism, March
4, 1890: "No one now, I suppose, holds that the first three chapters of Genesis,
for example, give a literal history - I could never understand how any one reading
them with open eyes could think they did."

Hort writes to Mr. John Ellerton: "I am inclined to think that no such state as
'Eden' (I mean the popular notion) ever existed, and that Adam's fall in no degree
differed from the fall of each of his descendants."

Hort writes to Mr. John Ellerton, July 6, 1848: "The pure Romish view seems to me
nearer, and more likely to lead to, the truth than the Evangelical...We should
bear in mind that that hard and unspiritual medieval crust which enveloped the
doctrine of the sacraments in stormy times, though in measure it may have made it
unprofitable to many men at that time, yet in God's providence preserved it
inviolate and unscattered for future generations... We dare not forsake the
sacraments or God will forsake us."

Hort writes to Westcott, September 23, 1864: "I remember shocking you and
Lightfoot not so long ago by expressing a belief that 'Protestantism' is only
parenthetical and temporary." "Perfect Catholicity has been nowhere since the
Reformation."

It is possible to start with some of the lesser quality Bibles until we grow in
our Christian walk and learn more about the differences. If there are differences
that cannot be resolved, then we become unable to establish doctrine and are
basically left with an relativistic-ecumenical document.
Rev.22:18-19
Recommended Book...
Our Authorized Bible Vindicated - Bejamin G. Wilkinson, 1996
Which Bible Can We Trust? - Les Garrett, 1982
New Age Bible Versions - G.A.Riplinger, 1993
Verses Effected (Which Bible Can We Trust? - Les Garrett, 1982)
New American Standard-909
Revised Version-788
New World Translation-767
NIV-695
Good News-614
Amplified-484
Douay-421
Old Jehovah's Witnesses-120
NKJV ignored the textus recepticus 1200 times



Moffat
Revision
Luke 23:44 "...till three o'clock, owing to an eclipse of the sun."

Look up the following verses
Mt. 17:21, 18:11, 23:14,
Mk. 7:16, 9:44, 9:46, 11:26, 15:28
Lk. 6:48, 17:36, 23:17
Jh. 5:4
Acts 8:37,9:5-6, 15:34, 24:6-8, 28:29
Rom. 8:1, 11:6, 16:24
Gal. 3:1, 3:17, 4:7, 6:17
Eph. 3:14
Col. 1:2, 1:14
1 Tim. 2:7, **3:16**
2 Tim. 4:22

Jehovah's Witnesses was the first to change, early in the 1900's when Westcott and Hort produced
their document. The JW's didn't have their own version because there had been no
other version except the Jesuit Douay version which had been rejected totally by
the reformation. More modern versions have emulated the JW's by casting doubt in
the margins of the authenticity of the verses that the JW's removed. There was a
huge cry after the revisions of the JW bible became known but today there are even
greater changes with less complaint.

"By the sole authority of textual criticism these men have dared to vote away some
forty verses of the inspired Word. The Eunuch's Baptismal Profession of Faith is
gone; and the Angel of the Pool of Bethesda has vanished; but the Angel of the
Agony remains - till the next Revision. The Heavenly Witnesses have departed, and
no marginal note mourns their loss. The last twelve verses of St. Mark are
detached from the rest of the Gospel, as if ready for removal as soon as Dean
Burgon dies. The account of the woman taken in adultery is placed in brackets,
awaiting excision. Many other passages have a mark set against them in the margin
to show that, like forest trees, they are shortly destined for the critic's axe.
Who can tell when the destruction will cease?" - Dublin Review, July 1881.
German Bible Society

"When Eberhard Nestle, in 1898, presented the first edition of Novum Testamentum
Graece, he had achieved a work of which the consequences were not only unknown to
him at the time, but also to the Wurtenberg Bible Society that made the edition
possible. If the Textus receptus at that time still had a number of defenders, the
science of the 19th century had however, finally proved it to be the worst text of
the New Testament. There the editions of Tischendorf (since 1841, the finalized
edition of editio octava critica maior of 1869/72), Tregelles (1857/72) and
Westcott/Hort (1881) controlled the field. But in practiced terms at the level of
university, church and school, the edition of the Textus receptus was still
largely used internationally as for example by the British Bible Society till
1904. Only with the release of the Nestle text did the rule of the Textus receptus
come to an end here also.

The received text is the old Byzantine text with hundreds of copies in agreement.
It was written in koine Greek of which hundreds of words cannot be translated into
classical Greek. The early Church used koine Greek manuscripts and rejected the
Alexandrian versions which were based on corrupt version with Origen and other
Gnostic revisions.

Origen taught that Jesus was a created being who did not have eternal existence as
God - Encyclopedia Britannica, vol.16, 1936, p.900-902.

"This doctrine of transmigration of souls obtained, as Porphyry informs us, among
the Persians and Magi. It was held in the East and the West and that from the
remotest antiquity. Herodotus found it among the Egyptians, who made the term of
the circle of migrations from one human body, through animals, fishes, and birds,
to another human body three thousand years... The Curds, the Chinese, the
Kabbalists, all held the same doctrine. So Origen held, and the Bishop Synesius,
the later of whom had been initiated, and who thus prayed to God: "O Father, grant
that my soul, reunited to the light, may not be plunged again into the defilements
of earth!" So the Gnostics held; and even the Disciples of Christ inquired if the
man who was born blind, was not so punished for some sin that he had committed
before his birth. - Morals and Dogma, p.399.

Origen gives much information as to the Mysteries of the Ophites; and there is no
doubt that all the Gnostic sects had Mysteries and an initiation. They all claimed
to possess a secret doctrine, coming to them directly from Jesus Christ, different
from that of the Gospels and Epistles, and superior to those communications, which
in their eyes, were merely exoteric.

Origen, born AD 134 or 135, answering Celsus, who had a concealed doctrine said:
"Inasmuch as the essential and important doctrines and principles of Christianity
are openly taught, it is foolish to object that there are other things that are
recondite; for this is common to Christian discipline with that of those
philosophers in whose teaching some things were exoteric and some esoteric: and it
is enough to say that it was so with some of the disciples of Pythagoras."
The Mysteries were open to the Fideles or Faithful only; and no spectators were
allowed at the communion. Tertullian, who died about AD 216, says in his Apology:
"None are admitted to the religious Mysteries without an oath of secrecy. We
appeal to our Thracian and Eleusinian Mysteries; and we are especially bound to
this caution, because if we prove faithless, we should not only provoke Heaven,
but draw upon our heads the utmost rigor of human displeasure. And should
strangers betray us? They knew nothing but by report and hearsay. Far hence, ye
Profane! Is the prohibition from all holy Mysteries."

Clemens, Bishop of Alexandria, born about AD 191, says, in his Stromata, that he
cannot explain the Mysteries, because he should thereby, according to the old
proverb, put a sword into the hands of a child.

Cyril, Bishop of Jerusalem, was born in the year 315, and died in 386. In his
Catechesis he says: "The Lord spake in parables to His hearers in general; but to
His disciples He explained in private the parables and allegories which He spoke
in public. The splendor of glory is for those who are early enlighted: obsurity
and darkness are the portion of the unbelievers and ignorant. Just so the church
discovers its Mysteries to those who have advanced beyond the class of
Catechumens: we employ obscure terms with others.

St. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo, who was born in 347, and died in 430, says in one
of his discourses: "Having dismissed the Catechumens, we have retained you only to
be our hearers; because, besides those things which belong to all Christians in
common, we are now to discourse to you of sublime Mysteries, which none are
qualified to hear, but those who, by the Master's favour, are made partakers of
them... To have taught them openly, would have been to betray them."

St. Chrysostom and St. Augustine speaks of initiation more than fifty times. St.
Ambrose writes to those who are initiated; and initiation was not merely baptism,
or admission into the church, but it referred to initiation into the Mysteries.-
Morals and Dogma, p.544-546.

Chrysostom, Bishop of Constantinople, was born in 354, and died in 417. He says:
"I wish to speak openly: but I dare not, on account of those who are not
initiated. I shall therefore avail myself of disguising terms, discoursing in a
shadowy manner... Where the holy Mysteries are celebrated, we drive away all
uninitiated persons, and then close the doors." He mentions the acclamations of
the initiated: "which," he says, "I here pass over in silence; for it is forbidden
to disclose such things to the Profane."

St. Cyril of Alexandria, who was made Bishop in 412, and died in 444, says in his
7th Book against Julian: "These Mysteries are so profound and so exalted, that
they can be comprehended by those only who are enlightened." - Morals and Dogma,
p.542-546.

compare with Matt.13:35; Is.45:19, 48:16; Amos 3:7; Mark 4:22; Luke 8:17, 11:33;
John 7:4, 18:20
"The word 'miracle' is found, singular and plural, thirty-two times in the
Authorized Version of the New Testament. Alas! What desolation has been wrought by
the Revised! In twenty-three of these instances, the word 'miracle' has entirely
disappeared. In the case of the other nine, although the term is used in the text,
its force is robbed by a weakening substitute in the margin." - Our Authorized
Bible Vindicated, Benjamin G. Wilkinson, 1996.

"In this connection we see the full meaning of the words used of creation in
Hebrews 11:3 By faith we understand that the worlds (the ages, i.e. the universe
under the aspect of time) have been formed by the Word of God... The whole
sequence of life in time, which we call 'the world' had been 'fitted together' by
God. His one creative word included the harmonious unfolding on one plan of the
last issues of all that was made. That which is in relation to Him 'one act at
once' is in relation to us an evolution apprehended in orderly succession." -
Westcott, Some Lessons, p.187.

"The Douay is like the Revised. On this change R. George Milligan says: "Acts
16:7,... the striking reading, 'the Spirit of Jesus' (not simply as in the
Authorized Version 'the Spirit') implies that the Holy Spirit had so taken
possession of the Person of the Exalted Jesus that He could be spoken of as 'the
Spirit of Jesus." - Milligan, Expository Value, p.99.

One writer thus registers his indignation upon the change made in 1 Cor. 5:7:
"Mad? Yes; and haven't I reason to be mad when I find that grand old passage, 'For
even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us' - a passage which sounds the
keynote of the whole doctrine of redemption - unnecessarily changed into, 'For our
Passover also hath been sacrificed, even Christ'? And we have such changes
everywhere. They are, I believe, called improvements in style by their authors -
and certainly by no one else." - Rev. E.B. Birks in Dr. Warfield's Collection of
Opinions, vol.2, p.30.

Bishop Westcott himself states: "All the tribes of the earth shall mourn over Him
in penitential sorrow, and not, as the Authorized Version, shall wail because of
Him, in the present expectation of terrible vegeance." - Westcott, Some Lessons,
p.196.

Dr. Alexander Roberts, a member of the English New Testament Committee writes on
Acts 3:19,20: "Acts 3:19,20. An impossible translation here occurs in the
Authorized Version, in which we read:... For eschatological reasons, it is most
important that the true rendering of this passage should be presented. It is thus
given in the Revised Version:..." - Roberts, Companion, p.80.

"This passage [Acts 15:23] is used as a foundation on which to base an argument
for a clergy separated by God in their function from the lay brethren. It makes a
vast difference, in sending out this authoritative letter, from the first council
of the Christian Church, whether it issued from the apostles and elders only, or
issued from the apostles, elders, and the brethren. Here again to effect this
change the Revisers omitted two Greek words." - Our Authorized Bible Vindicated,
Benjamin G. Wilkinson, 1996.

"This name then of 'priest' and 'priesthood' properly so called, as St. Augustine
saith, which is an order distinct from the laity and vulgar people, ordained to
offer Christ in an unbloody manner in sacrifice to His heavenly Father for us, to
preach and minister the sacraments, and to be the pastors of the people, the
wholly suppress their translations." - Fulke's Defense, p.242.

Canon Farrar claims the change [in Heb.9:27] was deliberate: "Canon Farrar ought
to know, because he was a member of that brilliant organization the "Apostles
Club"...Farrar said on this change: "There is a positive certainty that it does
not mean 'the judgment' in the sense in which that word is popularly understood.
By abandoning the article which King James translators here incorrectly inserted,
the Revisers help, as they have done in so many other places, silently to remove
deep-seated errors. At the death of each of us there follows 'a judgment,' as the
sacred writer says: the judgment, the final judgment, may not be for centuries to
come. In the omission of that unauthorized little article from the Authorized
Version by the Revisers, lies no less a doctrine than that of the existence of an
Intermediate State." - Canon F.W. Farrar, Contemporary Review, March 1882.

"For the text was one which, if rendered literally, no one could read without
being convinced, or at least suspecting, that the 'fathers' already dead needed
'mercy'; and that 'the Lord God of Israel' was prepared 'to perform' it to them.
But where were those fathers? Not in heaven, where mercy is swallowed up in joy.
And assuredly not in the hell of the damned, where mercy could not reach them.
They must therefore have been in a place between both, or neither the one nor the
other. What? In Limbo or Purgatory? Why, certainly. In one or the other." -
Mullen, Canon, p.332.

Cardinal Wiseman exults that the Revision Movement vindicates the Catholic Bible:
"When we consider the scorn cast by the Reformers upon the Vulgate, and their
recurrence, in consequence, to the Greek, as the only accurate standard, we cannot
but rejoice at the silent triumph which truth has at length gained over clamorous
error. For, in fact, the principal writers who have avenged the Vulgate, and
obtained for it its critical preeminence, are Protestants."

"From the Very Rev. Thomas S. Preston, of St. Ann's (R.C.) Church of New York:
'The brief examination which I have been able to make of the Revised Version of
the New Testament has convinced me that the Committee have labored with great
sincerity and diligence, and that they have produced a translation much more
correct than that generally received among Protestants. It is to us a
gratification to find that in very many instances they have adopted the reading of
the Catholic Version, and have thus by their scholarship confirmed the correctness
of our Bible." - Dr. Warfield's Collection of Opinions, vol.2, p.21.

A Catholic magazine claims that the Revised Version is the death knell of
Protestantism: "On the 17th of May the English speaking world awoke to find that
its Revised Bible had banished the Heavenly Witnesses and put the devil in the
Lord's Prayer. Protests loud and deep went forth against the insertion: against
the omission none. It is well, then, that the Heavenly Witnesses should depart
whence their testimony is no longer received. The Jews have a legend that shortly
before the destruction of their Temple, the Shechinah departed from the Holy of
Holies, and the Sacred Voices were head saying, "Let us go hence." So perhaps it
is to be with the English Bible, the Temple of Protestantism. The going forth of
the Heavenly Witnesses is the sign of the beginning of the end. Lord Panmure's
prediction may yet prove true - the New Version will be the death knell of
Protestantism - Dublin Review (Catholic), July 1881.

"The Revisers had a wonderful opportunity. They might have made a few changes and
removed a few archaic expressions, and made the Authorized Version the most
acceptable and beautiful and wonderful book of all time to come. But they wished
ruthlessly to meddle. Some of them wanted to change doctrine. Some of them did not
know good English literature when they saw it... There were enough modernists
among the Revisers to change the words of Scripture itself so as to throw doubt on
the Scripture." - Heal and Presbyter (Presbyterian), July 16, 1924, p.10.

Rabbi Balfour Brickner of Temple Sinai, Washington: "I am delighted to know that
at least this great error of translation has been finally corrected, and that at
least some elements of the Christian world no longer officially maintain that
Isaiah 7:14 is prediction that Jesus was to be born of the Virgin Mary." - "Which
Bible Can We Trust", Les Garrett, p.49

A huge Bahai temple is on top of Mount Carmel. Both the Penteteuch was given by God
at Sinai and another text was also found at Sinai (Sinaticus) that has been used
for the modern corruptions.

These are claims that are made. What is the evidence to support it?
I have read this before, but I need evidence.

Do you make a distinction between the Majority Text and the Received Text, or Textus Receptus?

Have you studied these things personally or are you just going by what you have read?

Give me an example of an ancient Greek manuscript which you believe came out of Syria?

The Ostrogoths were Arians. Did they have manuscripts that supported Arianism? What manuscripts did the Arian Ostrogoths prefer?

Can you name a particular manuscript that came from the middle east and which the people of Northern Italy had? How do you trace it to them?

1 John 5:7-8
(KJV) For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. {8} And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

(NIV) 7 For there are three that testify: 8 the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.
(NASV) 7 For there are three that testify: 8 the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.
(ESV) 7 For there are three that testify: 8 the Spirit and the water and the blood; and these three agree.
(CEV) 7 In fact, there are three who tell about it. 8 They are the Spirit, the water, and the blood, and they all agree.
(1901 ASV) 7 And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is the truth.
8 For there are three who bear witness, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and the three agree in one.
(HCSB) 7 For there are three that testify: 8 the Spirit, the water, and the blood;and these three are in agreement
(RSV) [7] And the Spirit is the witness, because the Spirit is the truth. [8] There are three witnesses, the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree.
(NAB-Roman Catholic) 7 So there are three that testify, 8 the Spirit, the water, and the blood, and the three are of one accord.
(NWT) 7 For there are three witness bearers, 8 the spirit and the water and the blood, and the three are in agreement.
(NKJV) Footnote - NU-Text and M-Text omit the words from in heaven (verse 7) through on earth (verse 8). Only four or five very late manuscripts contain these words in Greek. (The NKJV is a notorious version with their doubt casting footnotes which have the same devastating effect as if they just mutilated the text itself. Do you see they claim only 4 or 5 late manuscripts have the verse in them? We saw a lot more evidence than 4 or 5 which means they are deceiving their readers which means the NKJV also qualifies as a false version.)


Textus Receptus
1 John 5:7 oti treiV eisin oi marturounteV en tw ouranw o pathr o logoV kai to agion pneuma kai outoi oi treiV en eisin

1 John 5:8 kai treiV eisin oi marturounteV en th gh to pneuma kai to udwr kai to aima kai oi treiV eiV to en eisin


Hort Westcott
1 John 5:7 oti treiV eisin oi marturounteV

1 John 5:8 to pneuma kai to udwr kai to aima kai oi treiV eiV to en eisin



Corrupted Manuscripts
These verses are corrupted in the following manuscripts:
Aleph - Sinaiticus - Fourth Century
B - Sinaiticus - Fourth Century
A - Alexandrinus - Fifth Century

These three manuscripts are the primary manuscripts where 1 John 5:7-8 have been corrupted. There are many other later manuscripts which are ancillary to these three because they were copied from them. Like begets like and when you copy from a corrupted manuscripts the lineage of corruption will continue. 1 John 5:7-8 has been attacked by the pro modern version crowd as being a scribal addition later on in years. However, 1 John 5:7-8 is found in the Old Latin Vulgate and Greek Vulgate (90-150 A.D.), plus the Syriac Peshiito (150 A.D.) It is also found in many first century church lectionaries. Lectionaries were used in churches for readings and liturgy for church services especially for special days of the year. They are akin to the responsive readings which we find in today's hymn books. Tatian's Diatesseron which was a harmony of the four gospels written about 150 A.D. When Taitian was writing the book of John, he had referenced 1 John 5:7 which proves that 1 John 5:7 antedates Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, by 200 years, where the verse is omitted.

Dr. John Overall, who was one of the King James translators was a scholar in the teachings of the early Church Fathers. His contribution concerning 1 John 5:7 was vital since manuscript evidence was lacking because of the Alexandrian school where it was mutilated. He knew that the early church fathers had referenced those verses quite frequently. The modern version proponents only look to Vaticanus and Sinaiticus as their authorities and reject the massive amount of other evidences such as the church lectionaries. If 1 John 5:7-8 did not exist in the originals, then how could they have been quoted by the church fathers if it was non-existent? A simple question of logic.

Erasmus was a Greek scholar who was used of the Lord mightily as a precursor to the Reformation. He printed a Greek New Testament in 1516 and the Reformation took place in 1517. There is no such thing as a coincidence in the Kingdom of God, only a God-incident. Now Erasmus in reference to 1 John 5:7 originally did not want to include that portion unless a Greek manuscript could be found as evidence of its authenticity. He claimed that Greek manuscripts and even some Latin manuscripts did not have this verse in it. In due time Erasmus was presented with Codex Montfortianus which is in Dublin, Ireland and Codex Britannicus which both contained 1 John 5:7 and with this proof, he confidently placed these verses in his third edition of the Greek in 1522 and his last one in 1535. Erasmus died in 1536 but God had set the stage for the translation of the final true Bible in the English language which would be used of Christians until the Lord returned on the last day.

Some of the other evidences where 1 John 5:7-8 can be found are as follows:
Some Syriac Peshitto manuscripts, The Syriac Edition at Hamburg, Bishop Uscan's Armenian Bible, the Armenian Edition of John Zohrob, the first printed Georgian Bible.

Early Latin witnesses include:
1) Tertullian who died in 220 A.D.
2) Cyprian of Carthage who died in 258 A.D.
3) Priscillan who died in 358 A.D.
4) The Speculum - Fifth century
5) A creed called Esposito Fidei - Fifth or sixth century
6) Old Latin - Fifth or sixth century
7) A Confession of Faith of Eugenius, Bishop of Carthage (484 A.D.)
8) Cassiodoris of Italy (480-570 A.D.)

Nine Manuscripts which contain 1 John 5:7-8:
#61 - Sixteenth century
#88 - Twelfth century
#221 - Tenth century
#429 - Fourteenth century
#629 - Fourteenth century
#535 - Eleventh century
#636 - Fifteenth century
#918 - Sixteenth century
#2318 - Eighteenth century

The evidence is overwhelming for the authenticity of 1 John 5:7-8. Keep in mind that it was Origen who was the father of the false manuscripts who removed this verse as he did verses like Acts 8:37 and Luke 24:40. The Alexandrian school was no friend of the true manuscripts which were taken from Antioch and mutilated according to Gnostic beliefs.

Affected Teachings
The mutilation of 1 John 5:7-8 in the second century was an attack upon the Trinity. The rejection of the Trinity is alive and well today in the Jehovah's Witnesses camp and is alive and well in the modern versions which agree totally with their New World Translation. Trinitarian theology is totally disbelieved by the Gnostics and many cult groups including the Jews. For any Theologian, Pastor, or Christian to endorse a version which attacks the Trinity, means they too disbelieve the Trinity or else they would not be defending the Gnostic view.

These verses are the most hotly contested by the modern version proponents simply because they disregard all the evidence that is available. This section of Scripture has been named the Johannine Comma. 1 John 5:7-8 is as much a part of the original autographs as Jesus Himself was. Therefore, we can claim these verses as authentic without hesitation.

Have you read what the Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary says about 1 John 5: 7?

Please tell me:

1) How many Greek manuscripts of the NT exist?

2) How many Greek manuscripts dating to before the 10th century AD contain 1 John 5: 7 as given in the Textus Receptus?

3) Is it quoted by any of the Greek Fathers? If so, who are they?

4) What ancient version include it?

I'm Textus Receptus only.



I've studied these things personally, and I'm going by what I've read during my studies, so both.



The Peshito, which is written in Aramaic.



Origen, whose manuscripts are alive today, was an Arian, and if you're reading these newer Bibles based on Westcott and Hort's works, you're reading an Arian Bible.

Are you positive the Ostrogoths were Arians? I realize the history books identify them as such, but the only true evidence we have that the they were Arians comes from the Roman Catholic Church herself.

The only thing we know for certain is they wouldn't bow down to the Bishop of Rome and they were one of the three horns that were plucked out.



The Latin Bible, the Italic, was translated from the Greek no later than 157 AD, and was the Bible used by the Waldenses.

Would you say that the Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (1957) is one of the pro modern version crowd who is telling untruths about the Bible? The SDA BC says that 1 John 5: 7 was not part of the original text.

Based on my study of textual history the SDA BC had very good reason for saying what it did.

I'm a conservative Seventh-day Adventist who believes strongly in all 28 of the Adventist Fundamental Beliefs and in the Spirit of Prophecy. I love and use the KJV, but enjoy using the other translations. I'm not against the KJV by any means. But I do believe in good scholarship and in dealing with the Bible texts according to valid scholarly principles of research.



What is the oldest text of the Old Latin Vulgate in which it occurs?

What "Greek Vulgate" manuscripts do you refer to?

What is the oldest Greek manuscripts it occurs in? What manuscript from 80-150 AD contain it? Can you name it? All Greek manuscripts are numbered-- please give its number.

Can you show evidence that it occurs in the Peshitta Syriac version? You say that it is in the Peshitta dating all the way back to 150 AD. What is the source of that information? Do you know the manuscript number?



Can you find out for sure if this true? What is the source of this information?

The question is whether the line was being quoted as if from the Bible, because the simple fact that those words can be found in a church lectionary does not by itself prove that it was part of the Bible.

If it was part of the NT manuscripts at that time, and was an accepted part of the churches' teachings, how do you account for our being unable to find any ancient Greek manuscripts containing those words?



What is your evidence that Taitian referenced 1 John 5: 7 in 150 AD? What is the source of this information, and who are they quoting?

Check out this information, none of which I have had time yet to verify:

I believe that 1 John 5: 7 is the truth-- that is, I don't believe it contradicts the rest of Scripture. In fact, I would be delighted to find that it was a part of the original text.

Come back and continue the discussion about 1 John 5: 7. I am very interested in it, as I am in all things related to the Bible text and translation.

We might need to make a separate thread if we're going to continue discussing it much longer because it is kind of off topic, and as a moderator, I guess I should try to stick by the rules on keeping on topic.

Have you found any of the fundamental beliefs of the SDA church which you cannot support by the NIV or the NASB? What doctrines cannot be taught by the Critical Text?

Yes, I have this book and have read it. It contains some good information. The main weakness of the book is that its primary focus are personal attacks on the characters of Wescott and Hort. I'm interested in textual studies, not in personalities. So I wish the focus had been on textual evidence rather than on showing what bad people Westcott and Hort were.



I believe that the KJV and NKJV got this verse right, but even many SDA scholars today believe it should be "blessed are those who wash their robes." Don't you think the verse means the same thing? How can one wash ones robes without obeying God's commandments?

See Revelation of Jesus Christ by Ranko Stefanovic (Andrews University Press, 2002), pp. 608, 609.



Jehovah's Witnesses didn't produce their "translation" until 1961, after many other translations were made.



The main problem with the New World Translation is that it mistranslates many verses having to do with Christ, such as John 1: 1, making it say, "And the word was a god." Etc.

The main problem is not that it is based on the Westcott and Hort text, but that it is a very poor translation. We know today that the "translators" were not trained in their fields, and that most of the translation was done by Franz, who had little knowledge of the original languages.

Most translations made today are based on a text similar to the one produced by Westcott and Hort.

Have you seen Richard Lattimore's translation of the New Testament? It is based on the Westcott and Hort text also. Lattimore is probably the best translator of the New Testment, having taught Greek translation for decades and translated most of the Greek classics.



I notice this is from Wilkinson's book, Our Authorized Bible Vindicated.

Do you believe that the story of the angel going to the pool of Bethesda (John 5: 4) is genuine?

I find it hard to believe that an angel of God did what is recorded there. It seems cruel. Think of what that story says about God. People would want to be healed but stayed sick because they couldn't get into the water fast enough; someone would get in the water before them.

There are many good reasons for rejecting this verse, including lack of textual evidence. The SDA Bible Commentary agrees. It does not appear in the earliest manuscripts. It also uses vocabulary that is used nowhere else in the writings of John.

I think we have to face the fact that the Textus Receptus contains some verses that were not in the original text as written by the prophets and apostles. This should not be surprising to us.

But I do believe that God has not allowed the Bible (i.e., the manuscripts) to contain things that would lead people to be be lost. Ellen White herself said that the Bible may contain some errors and mistakes but those are not of such a kind as to keep us from being able to trust it to teach us the truth about God and salvation.

For instance, it seems clear to me that 1 John 5: 7 was not part of the original, yet it does not teach false doctrine.

Please compare the KJV with NASB or NIV at Titus 2: 13 and 2 Peter 1: 1. The King James Version does not translate those verses correctly, whereas the NKJV and the others do. These verses as translated correctly by the NIV and NASB teach clearly that Jesus Christ is God.

What verses in the NASB or the NIV prevent the student who reads those translations from knowing that Jesus Christ is God?

I know that there are many poor translations published. There are some problems with all translations. Some are better than others, but there is no really perfect translation.

My primary interest and focus is on the underlying Greek printed texts and the manuscript evidence for those printed texts.

Even if we assume that all of the following evidence in support of 1 John 5: 7 is accurate and true, do you believe that it adds up to a strong argument in favor of that verse being part of the original text?

Personally I am convinced that none of it overcomes the all-important fact that with the exception of 4 very poor and very late manuscripts, none of the Greek manuscripts of the NT contain it. (It is only in manuscripts 61 of the 16th century; manuscript 88 of the 12th century; a 12th century manuscript at Naples, which has the passage written in the margin by a modern hand;ms. 629, a 14th or fifteenth century manuscript in the Vatican; and ms. 635, an eleventh century manuscript which has the passage written in the margin by a 17th century hand.)

How do you explain that it is not in any other manuscripts? Why would a text proving the Trinity be removed by those who believe the Trinity doctrine?

Hebrews 9:11-12 (NIV)

When Christ came as high priest of the good things that are already here, he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not man-made, that is to say, not a part of this creation. He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, having obtained eternal redemption.

The Sanctuary message falls apart here. Jesus would have had to step in the Holy Place upon his death, not the Most Holy Place.

Funny thing, NASB got it right, but the NKJV gets it wrong as well.

So here's my choices- I can carry around 2 different Bibles based on manuscripts edited by the Arian Origen and hope one of them says the right thing, or I can just rely on the King James, which never lets me down.

I completely agree with you about Hebrews 9: 11-12. That is one of the worst verses in the NIV, a major blunder, as in the NKJV too, like you pointed out.

By the way, the NRSV is one of the best translations for Heb. 9.

But that's not my question. I am not asking about translations. I am asking about the Critical Text upon which those translations are based. That's a big difference. The printed Greek texts can't be blamed for the bad translations made from them.

Is there any doctrine of our church-- or really, any Bible doctrine, period-- that is found in the Received Text but which is destroyed by the Critical Text?

In other words, what SDA Fundamental Belief can be taught by the KJV but cannot be taught by the NASB or other good translations of the Critical Text?

You can actually teach SDA doctrines from the NIV, too, as long as you explain Hebrews 9: 12 to the student, which is really not hard to do.

This is certainly true. The KJV is much more literal. Its single drawback for me is that it uses so many obsolete English words, or words that have changed meanings since 1611. There are a few verses that I believe were not part of the original but they are fairly easy to identify, and I don't use those in Bible studies with people. The topics can very well be taught without them-- for instance, 1 John 5: 7.

I would still use 1 Tim. 3: 16 but I would explain to them why it is usually not found in modern translations. The same with Rev. 22: 14.

What evidence do you have that it is in Ms. 221?

What evidence is there that it is in Ms. 429?

Please check on this: Your #535 should read #635. #635 is an 11th century ms. I don't see a manuscript #535 listed.

I believe manuscript #636 does not contain 1 John 5: 7 but only Acts and the Epistles of Paul. I could be wrong. Could you tell me your evidence for this? What source are you using for the information? However, it is so late that it scarcely matters. It was about the time when Erasmus was collating the NT.

What is the evidence that the 16th century manuscript contains 1 John 5: 7?

Is this really overwhelming evidence for the genuineness of 1 John 5: 7.

The reason I don't think so is that all of the manuscripts are of such late date-- particularly those after the 12th century-- that they are hardly worth anything in the way of evidence for the genuineness of the verse we're considering.

It is necessary to consider the fact that two of them have the passage written in the margin in late handwriting, different from the original handwriting. That only leaves Manuscripts 61 and 629, both very late manuscripts.

Think of this: Erasmus said he wouldn't include the verse unless someone produced a Greek manuscript with the verse in it. He had never seen it in a genuine manuscript before, so he thought no one would be able to produce one. But lo and behold they found two or three very late manuscripts that did include it, but the handwriting looked like it could have just been written it in the margin.

I have read the Erasmus had doubts about their authenticity but that he felt obligated to include them because of his promise.

The earliest instance of the passage being quoted as a part of the actual text of the Epistle is in a fourth century Latin treatise entitled Liber Apologeticus (chap. 4) attributed either to the Spanish heretic Priscillian (died about 385) or to his follower Bishop Instantius.

But in any case, none of this rises to a level of "overwhelming" evidence for the genuineness of a text.

If this is overwhelming evidence, we can't reject the evidence of Westcott and Hort for their text, because they often can show much stronger evidence than is shown for 1 John 5: 7.

You mention that 1 John 5: 7 is found in the Syriac, but my sources tell me that it is not there.

Could you show references for this information that it is found as far back in time as 150 AD? Is it said at that time to be part of Scripture? If so, that would be extremely interesting.

How can it be explained that 1 John 5: 7 is not found in Lamsa's translation from the ancient Aramaic Peshitta texts?

His translation of v. 7 reads, "And the Spirit testifies that that very Spirit is the truth."

Good Sabbath John317 and Scar, how good of a Bible is the New English Bible? And in your opinion which Bible makes the best to study from? I have a Harpers Study Bible (RSV) that I like. Do you know anything about this Bible?

pk

Yet you think older necessarily means better. Do you really believe the Lord our God would entrust his real, accurate manuscripts to the Roman Catholic Church and a wastepaper basket in a convent on Mount Sinai?

What do you do with your Bibles? I read them until they fall apart and then I replace them. The reason there's no earlier examples of the manuscripts is because people read them until they fell apart.

No Christian ever died for the Critical Text. Remember that very important fact.

Also, if older is better, wouldn't it make sense to examine the writings of the early Church fathers and decide which Bible they quoted from? That's exactly what the KJV translators did, and it supported the use of the Textus Receptus.



I can reject the texts Westcott and Hort used simply because they descended from Origen. Origen believed in false doctrines, and believed the Bible was an allegory as well. He believed we're all just as divine as Jesus Christ himself.

Also, how can these translators get Hebrews 9:11-12 right in one instance and wrong in almost every other, WHEN THEY'RE USING THE SAME MANUSCRIPTS? Deception is the name of the game when it comes to these new Bible versions.

Matthew 24:24

For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.

Don't forget that very important warning from Jesus Christ himself.

I guess, for "authenticity's" sake, we should quit mentioning homosexuality as something the Lord views as an abomination, we should forget about the story of Jesus and the adulteress ("Let he who sinned cast the first stone"), and many others, because these aren't present in the "earliest" texts.

Happy Sabbath.

The New English Bible should not be used as a primary study Bible but as something like a commentary on the Bible. It can offer some insights into the text and help the reader see verses in their context. It's what is called a dynamic translation rather than a literal one, so it's not a good translation for doing close and careful study. It's very beautiful in certain parts, such as the Psalms and the Old Testament prophets. Acts 20: 7 is translated as "Saturday night" instead of "first day of the week" or "Sunday."

I also like and enjoy the Harper's Study Bible, edited by Herald Lindsell. In my personal study I often use it. I had a book bindery put both the KJV and the Harper Study Bible together in one binding, so I am constantly going back and forth between the RSV and the KJV. The Harper Study Bible generally has good, reliable notes, and I like it's outline of the books. The RSV corrects some of the mistakes in translation that the KJV made, but the RSV also was translated from a different textual tradition. The KJV was translated from the Received Text whereas the translators of RSV used the Critical Text, which bases its reading on the Alexandrian type of manuscript. Personally I'm usually OK with either reading. (At SDA universities and at the SDA seminary, Adventist ministerial students train and study in the use of the Critical Text. We need to be familiar with both KJV and RSV or NRSV.)

Two things in the Harper Study Bible that I find particularly interesting is Lindsell's notes on the beginning of the 70 week prophecy in Daniel 9: 24-27, which Lindsell places at 457 BC; and his notes in Romans regarding the sin and the law of God.

Probably the best study combination is the KJV and the NASB, but the RSV and NASB are very similar.

Hope this helps.

Yes John it helps, thanks. I was wondering about the NASB, which I've heard you talk about. How good of a translation is that?

pk

As a general rule, the NASB is one of the best study Bibles because it's literal and it translates words consistently. One of its draw-backs is that it is not as beautiful to read aloud as the KJV or the RSV.

My own personal opinion is that one should study the NASB along with the NKJV. I usually study out of four: the KJV, NASB, RSV, and Amplified. I love the Amplified.

Thanks john. I personally do not like reading the KJV. I have the same problem with EGWs writings, even though I do read them. Do they have a combo bible with those 4 versions.

pk

No, not necessarily. Just because a manuscript is older doesn't mean it's correct. Older manuscripts also can have error in them. On the other hand, just because it is older doesn't mean it's to be rejected out of hand.

But if we have four manuscripts--none of which is earlier than the 11th or 12th century AD-- which have 1 John 5: 7, and none of the other thousands of manuscripts contain it, what reason do we have to believe that 1 John 5: 7 is genuine?

For it to be removed from all manuscripts, it would have to be removed by people who believe in the Trinity, and why would they do that?



The way I understand the Lord to work is that he would allow the real, accurate manuscripts to be among any and all Christians. I think that God has watched over the Bible to make sure it survived and was not changed to the point where it would lead honest students of His word to be misled.

I am open to the idea that the Bible of the Waldeneses was the only true and accurate Bible. I am reading Wilkinson's Truth Triumphant. But to believe that, I need to see evidence of it in the manuscripts themselves.

What do you find to be the most persuasive evidence in the manuscripts themselves that the Received Text is the most accurate and is the one preserved by people such as the Waldeneses?

Can you show any doctrine in the Bible that was removed from the Critical Text manuscripts so that a doctrine found in the RT cannot be found in the Critical Text?

Some mention that the Critical Text is Arian and that those texts dealing with Christ's deity were removed. What is the evidence of this?

If that is the case, why can the deity of Christ be taught better and more clearly from the NASB (based on the Critical Text) than it can from the King James Version (based on the Received Text)?

(Two examples of this are seen by comparing Titus 2: 13 and 2 Peter 1: 1 in the KJV and NASB. Both the Critical Text and Received Text are identical in those verses, but the translation of the NASB give it correctly: Jesus is both our God and Savior. We have better understanding of the rules of Greek grammar than the translators of the KJV had.)

I probably enjoy the KJV because I learned how to read from the second grade on by reading the KJV. My mother and an aunt were both elementary teachers and my aunt had us read from the KJV a lot. She bought all of the students a KJV with large print and we would read it aloud in small groups. She also had the students put on a program where we recited large portions of the KJV from memory.



Why do you think you don't like reading her? Is it because of the style?

Her style of course is Victorian. It is not as direct as people write today, and her sentences can be longer than average by today's standards. Also she uses some words differently than people are accustomed to in our day.



There's the Comparative Study Bible which has the KJV, Amplified, NASB, and NIV.

The KJV is the only one of those translations that gives Mark 7: 19 the way the Greek gives it. The others add words that do not occur in the Greek.

So I would guess that this would be a good Bible to purchase. I know that the web has sites where you can compare different versions, but its a pain to read it that way. I prefer the actual book in front of me.

I think we have all grown up with the KJV, at least the ones that are at least 40 or older, but I still don't really like it. Not because its good or bad, but just the way it reads.

pk

I'm the same way. I like being able to turn the page back and forth and compare, and write notes on the pages.

Do you have any recommendations on commentary's? I do have the SDA commentary set. I also have something called the Westminster Dictionary of the Bible and Harper's Bible Dictionary. Not sure how good they are. I enjoy looking up things in the SDA commentary's.

pk

A good single volume commentary is Jamieson, Fausset& Brown's Commentary On the Whole Bible, published by Zondervan. There's also Adam Clarke's, which can be purchased in multi volumes or in edited form as a single volume. Matthew Henry is good but his writing style is dull or boring.

There's also a very good commentary by Albert Barnes on the NT.
http://www.studylight.org/com/bnn/

All of the above were written in the 19th century but they are still excellent for general information and reliable in their interpretation as a whole.

I would never buy anything published by Zondervan. I know I can't stop the New Age/Satanic movement, but at least I can vote against it with my wallet.

Zondervan is owned by Harper Collins, which is a subsidiary of News Corportation, which is owned by Rupert Murdoch.

Harper Collins publishes books such as The Joy of Gay Sex, The Satanic Bible, and How To Make Love Like a Porn Star.

Rupert Murdoch is a member of Rick Warren's Saddleback Church and claims to be a born again Christian, yet he is one of the world's leading pornographers and actively expanding his illicit empire.

Yet another reason to avoid the NIV and the other New Age Bibles...

"If the Catholic Church really honors the Bible as the holy Word of God--if she really wants her members to become familiar with its truth--why in times past did she confiscate and burn so many Bibles?

The Bibles which were collected and burned by the Catholic Church in times past--notably the Wycliff and Tyndale Bibles--were faulty translations, and therefore, were not the holy Word of God. In other words, the Catholic Church collected and burned those ``Bibles'' precisely because she does honor the Bible, the true Bible, as the holy Word of God and wants her members to become familiar with its truths. Proof of this is seen in the fact that after those Bibles were collected and burned, they were replaced by accurate editions. There can be no doubt that the Wycliffe and Tyndale translations were corrupt and therefore deserving of extinction, for no church has ever attempted to resurrect them. Nor can there be any doubt that the Bibles which replaced them were correct translations, because they have long been honored by both Protestants and Catholics. "

Source (Bold emphasis mine) - http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/a/faq-cc.html#q10

Here's what Ellen White has to say about Wycliffe.

Tyndale was a student of Erasmus and he wrote an English Bible based on the Greek manuscripts in circulation at that time. He was burned at the stake by the Catholic Church in 1536.

King James Bible was published in 1611. The text basis of the King James Version was the Textus Receptus which itself was based on that textual work of Desidarius Erasmus (1516/1535), Stephanus (1550/51), and Theodore de Beza of Geneva (1598).

Make no mistake about it. The Textus Receptus is still banned today by the Holy Roman Catholic Church. Reason enough for me to be Textus Receptus only.

Can you purchase this comparative Bible at the abc?

pk

Yes, they have several. If they don't have them in stock, they will be able to order one for you. Ask them to tell you which translations are available in the comparable Bibles. You should be able to get the KJV, New King James, New Living, and New International.

There's also an edition of just the KJV and the Amplified in nice, large print.

Thanks John317, I went in to the abc yesterday and I didn't see any, but I didn't ask either. I thought I'd go to a barnes & nobles or a christian book store in the area, but I think they might be closed. Barnes & Nobles will be open though.

pk

I used NKJV a contemporary english from KJV. KJV was the less perverted version that follows the word-for-word version of the bible.

have you read the book: The Illuminti-666 by William Joshua Sutton it's a very great book. It opens the eye the blinded for very long!

Barnes and Nobles will have a comparative Bible. In fact, they usually have two or three different kinds. If the Christian book store is a pretty good size, they will also have at least one kind. It will usually include four versions. I have one edition that includes 8 translations of the New Testament. A wonderful way to study the Bible, I find. I hope you find what you want.

Yes, I have book. Willie Josiah Sutton also wrote another book, this one about the anti-Christ. Both are full of good documentation.

Willie Sutton once stayed with my father, an SDA pastor, in Tennessee, during the late 1980s. I'm not sure Willie's still alive.

King James Version.

I usually study the sabbath school lesson with my NRSV then on Sabbath I take my NASB with me.

I like them all.

We have something in common, then.

Almost all of them have something good about them. Even the Jehovah's Witness's bad translation does have some very good, very accurate parts, but they are fairly rare. For instance, Ps. 1 and also the parts of Psalms which refer to the dead.

My favorite right now-- apart from the KJV, which is always #1-- is the Standard English Version. It's more accurate than the NIV, but the NIV is superior stylistically. I mean it sounds better to the ear when read aloud.

All bible versions have good seed and bad seed in the same field. it's only if you focus on the testimony of Christ (OT and NT) that you will begin to see the confusion that the bible leads the Christian denominations into. Bottom line.. all bibles today are Catholic Doctrine.

This study illustrates that clearly by page 35 and 36

http://www.thedeathandresurection.com/pdf/the%20death%20and%20resurrection.pdf

the information is free. The best things in life usually are but people are all to willing to pay for speculation.

God Bless

Do you mean the OT equally with the NT?

Are you talking about the underlying Greek printed texts or are you speaking primarily of the translations made from those printed texts?

Can you name any "doctrine" or teaching found in the KJV that is not found, or cannot be taught from, the Critical Text of the NT?

I'm not referring here to the "changes" in some of the verses, but I refer to actual doctrines or teachings.

To see why this applies to portions of OT as well as NT You have to understand the Almah/betulah controversy. Page 35 at this link gives the facts of the christian condition with testimony that is validated ancient by more than one source in the study that presents it.

http://www.thedeathandresurection.com/pdf/the%20death%20and%20resurrection.pdf

This link which you will find at that page gives much more information on why the christian today is not takeing the gospel to the world.

http://www.thedeathandresurection.com/pdf/the%20virgin-maiden%20controversy.pdf

The Christian today does not realize to what extent they are born into the spirit of anti-christ by Christian tradition handed to them by Rome. They must overcome this spirit with the wisdom Of God from God(baptism of spirit). Until mankind understands why this is not happening today. They will continue in the false perception of salvation which Christ prophecied.

Picking a bible version is like trying to define the term christian.

-Professing belief in Jesus as Christ or following the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.
-Relating to or derived from Jesus or Jesus's teachings.
-Manifesting the qualities or spirit of Jesus; Christlike.
-Relating to or characteristic of Christianity or its adherents.
-Showing a loving concern for others; humane.
-One who professes belief in Jesus as Christ or follows the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.
-One who lives according to the teachings of Jesus.

How history defines christian.
-one who kills jews.
-30,000 different versions of denominational names all caliming to follow the same persons teachings, only different facets of the teschings. All build on a book called the bible and reject that the leader of the movement said to build on Him.
-A people who claim christ did not come according to the flesh. See Matt chapt 1. It illustrates christ coming according to special surcumstance leaving mulitple prophecies unfulfilled.
-A people who claim to preach the Gospel of jesus who unknowingly only have half the information God wants them to have.

With Christian being such a shakey term to define. Anyone claiming to be bult on the solid testimony of Jesus should never use this term since it cannot be clearly defined just as the many bible versions that exist today cannot get the story strait, they all carry the same title.. yet many have more books than others while some have more verses in certain chapters than others.

The bible is no different thant the Christian that carries it. It goes by a name that cannot be clearly defined! Christ pointed you to the heavently parent. When will the Christian go to the parent? The Law will take you there. It's how we walk in the parents ways and become faithful witnesses.

To know these definitions are true.
See information at the link. The first link is mearly to validate that the second link is worth your while.

http://www.thedeathandresurection.com/pdf/the%20death%20and%20resurrection.pdf

http://www.thedeathandresurection.com/pdf/gospel%20of%20holy%2012.pdf

Just remember there is both good seed and bad seed in the same field. You are not to uproot what you think are tares or you uproot the wheat. your Christian forfathers did this against the voice of prophecy. the end result leaves you holes in your history which in turn leaves you confused and speculating.

God Bless

You can have as many Bibles as you feel you need to do a credible job of finding truth, all for free. Google E-Sword or for Mac users MacSword. There you will find numerous down-loadable Bibles, Concordances, Strong's Greek and Hebrew lexicon and other source books all for free. I also use an very easy to use interface called Bible Desktop into which you can place all this material and access it in multiple windows so you can do Biblical comparison with ease. Try it, I think you will really like it.

I have included the links:

E-Sword MacSword

God said man can only live by Every word that proceeded from the mouth of God. Show me any version of the book titled the bible that contains every word. The gospel found at this link contains more words of NT testimony that Christ spoke. The 4 Roman Gospels in your bible came from this document. Untill you read the document, test it against prophecy you will continue to make a book your shepard.

http://www.thedeathandresurection.com/pdf/gospel%20of%20holy%2012.pdf

Can the cry be any louder to come out of Babylon? or will Christians reject their history because of the traditions of men?

P.S. The holy spirit will be grieved away by our traditions.

Todd,
I have already downloaded this document on my own and am in the process of going through it. It was not a criticism of you for posting it, and I agree that there are a number of documents that didn't make it into the New Testament and others that were included strictly based on a political view point not on a search for truth. God never said we should check our brains at the door in the discovery of Truth and blindly accept a Canon as true simply because we have been told to. I test all prophecy with the 7 rules of prophetic interpretation as found here:
Seven Rules for Prophetic Interpretation

These rules come from Scripture and take personal bias out of the study of prophecy. With these 7 rules anyone can understand prophecy for themselves, and don't need an 'expert' to interpret the prophecies for them.

To understand anything spiritual we must become discerning people, able to tell truth from lies. This is why I rely on the Words of Jesus Christ ONLY as my source for truth.

If you don't except the whole Bible, than how do you know for a fact that the word's of Jesus are correct? You can't just pick and choose!

pk

Are you talking about the underlying Greek printed texts or are you speaking primarily of the translations made from those printed texts?

Can you name any "doctrine" or teaching found in the KJV that is not found, or cannot be taught from, the Critical Text of the NT?

I'm not referring here to the "changes" in some of the verses, but I refer to actual doctrines or teachings.

To find what is wrong with a counterfeit dollar, one must first study and know the real one. Therefore I urge everyone to first study the words of Jesus given to us by His eyewitnesses first. This would be Matthew, Mark (for Peter's words), John and Revelation. James is interesting, but Jesus' brother was not one of the disciples and John 14:26 and 17:20 do not apply. I also found it interesting that Jesus' own brothers tried to get Him killed at one time. Right?

The original KJV was translated from the Textus Vaticanus c. 10th - 11th centuries that in turn was copied by a monk named Erasmus, and is, in textual criticism circles, widely held to be inferior to earlier texts. This being said (and look it up for yourselves) this is why it is important to have a wide variety of translations (not transliterations as is the Clear Word) at your fingertips with with to make comparisons. That is why I recommended E-Sword and MacSword.

As to a Doctrine taught in the O.T. version of the KJV as opposed to the Critical text of the N.T. here is just one:

The Doctrine of the immortality of the Soul is very much in the Critical Text that was translated into the N.T. Paul is a great proponent of "Life after Death" with a number of his texts that refer to it. In the O.T. there are any number of passages that prove or at the very least strongly imply that "the dead know not anything". In Luke (Luke writing for Paul) there is the story of the Criminal hanging next to Jesus to which Jesus is purported to have said, "I say to you,(comma here) today you will be with me in paradise." (This is ONLY found in Luke.) The Greek language is anarthoris, that is there are no definite articles such as 'and', 'of', 'but', 'it', etc. There is also NO punctuation. All articles and punctuation are supplied by the translator, whoever that was. Therefore this passage could just as easily have been translated, "I say to you today,(comma here) you will be with me in paradise." The translator of the Textus Vaticanus being a monk in the Catholic church certainly believed that Paul was a valid apostle of Jesus and would have translated that text to reflect Paul's understanding of the immortality of the soul, that is, when you die you go directly to Heaven-do not pass go and collect $200.

This is just one of dozens of 'mis-translations' that are reflected not only in the KJV but is most other translations. Does this mean that it is automatically true? Certainly not, which is why I said we must become discerning people, able to judge what is true and what is not from the totality of what is said in the O.T. and by Jesus Christ said in the N.T.

This is the problem with typed forums. Many take out of context the words written as critisim.

My appoligies for sounding less then humble.

That is just it.. i have accepted the whole bible where the christian picks and chooses to make their doctrine. Observe carefully any study on the internet today. See if they use every word of bible testimony that applies to the topic of the death and resurrection.

You will find that they take what only suites their preconcieved perception of truth. thus ignoring Jesus testimony and claiming christ as figurative.

You ask a good question out how do you know what is from God and what is not.

Two prophecies for the same event are in your bible and they give a different perception of time. Do you go on the majority of the witness of men who do not speak in one accord in your bible? or do you go on the mulitiple prophetic witnesses which are God's witness of his son?

The choice is your. what defines your perception?

Have you not clicked on any of the free information I have shared with you?

http://www.thedeathandresurection.com/pdf/gospel%20of%20holy%2012.pdf

A full lengh gospel sufaces in history revealing much yet the christian world wants nothing to do with it because it was not a preserved gift from Rome their Mother.

The study at This link validates the credibility of the content since the testimonies of men differ regarding the first link. this study validates credibly that the 4 roman gospels of half truth came from the gospel being shared.

http://www.thedeathandresurection.com/pdf/the%20death%20and%20resurrection.pdf

Blessings

to find what is wrong with christianity. write the laws of the Lord on your heart and you will hear the voice from the source of truth. Keep reading half truth gospels if you wish.. the Lord is your shepard.. are you not listing? Does your living Lord live in the pages of a book?

To have multiple translation of Roman doctrine only adds to the confusion of Babylon (the mixing of words causing confusion).

When are you going to come to your God whom you claim to serve? God simplified the message he taught... keep the commandments of God For this is mans all... everything else is to identify Christ as the one who would give the knowlege of how this is done since even the Jews could not get it right and played the harlot with false God's just as the gentiles are doing today.

Jeremiah 16:19
O LORD, my strength and my fortress, My refuge in the day of affliction, The Gentiles shall come to You From the ends of the earth and say, “ Surely our fathers have inherited lies, Worthlessness and unprofitable things.” Will a man make gods for himself, Which are not gods?

By not commming to God throught the wisdom he gave to all men. The Law (pentacost) (shavot)
They all make a God of a book and writings.

Untill mankind can dicern why God allowed this gospel to surface in history and what it means for mankind. they will never know the truth. They know not how to keep the Law.

http://reluctant-messenger.com/essene/gospel_index.htm

http://www.thedeathandresurection.com/pdf/gospel%20of%20holy%2012.pdf

This link illustrates how to use Prophecy (God's word) as a light to the world and differing testimonies of men even within your bible.

http://www.thedeathandresurection.com/pdf/the%20death%20and%20resurrection.pdf

It's time to wake up.. the shaking is here!

Davar – Another Free “Scripture Study Tool”

Use It - and e-Sword Too!







Here’s Davar v. 3 - another great “Scripture Study Tool!” It can do some things e-Sword doesn’t do for you yet… Like helping you read the Aramaic Peshitta New Testament using either Arabic or Hebrew font!


Praise the Lord!

Thanks, I'll get it.

The vast majority of my reading and studying is through the NASB version.

However, in deeper study, I'll use my BibleWorks to pull up just about any version known to man to get to the root of a text. In English, though, the RSV, KJV, NKJV, NIV, and TEV versions get the nod.

In Christ,

”Which Bible version…”











Dear Gail,


Answering your question directly, and in terms similar to those of Ted Oplinger’s post just above…

I use which ever Bible version that, from my point of view, is best helping me perceive the underlying original writ. When the original text is not available or when it is not even known with certainty which one may be closest, then I consider the internal evidence of the extant available texts in close comparison with the reality and with the laws of nature as designed and upheld by the Creator.

For instance, I’ve been impressed that, re the Gospel of Matthew, the closest thing we have to the original is that transcript which is known as Shem Tov’s Hebrew Matthew, which I find is definitely not a translation from the Greek as has been commonly believed in the past. Re Mark, Luke, Acts, Revelation, and probably at least some of Paul’s epistles, which are more than likely also originally written in Hebrew, I use the Greek Textus Receptus while remembering always that that Greek is the translator’s best effort of accomplishing as literal a translation as possible of the text being translated, whether from the Hebrew or from an Aramaic intermediary translation.

Re the Old Testament, at one time, years ago, I used to believe that the LXX was the one closest to the original because at that time I believed that there was insufficient space of time for known dated historical events following the flood using the Masoretic text. After having studied the evidence provided by Immanuel Velikovsky in his Ages in Chaos series of books, I came to recognize that conventional ancient history has inflated the real ancient history by some 600 to 800 years that never were. In consequence of that I find that the remaining evidence points to the Masoretic text being the one closest to the original text written.

Given that I am not by far as fluent in either Greek or Hebrew as I wish I was, I use any and all translations of those texts that are available to me in a language I am more familiar with, for instance English or Swedish. My preferred English version is the Amplified English Bible because it really has a way of bringing out much more from the original languages than any of the other versions, yet, more often than not, I use KJV because of its close ties to the original by means of Strong’s numbers.

Lately, I’ve had the question raised in my mind as to whether or not the Peshitta may possibly be that intermediary Aramaic text between the original Hebrew New Testament books and the Greek Textus Receptus etc., but that question of mine I have yet to pursue before being better able to determine the answer…


Shalom,

Tree of Life©

Four of the best and most literal and accurate translations of the whole Bible are:

(1) Robert Young's Literal (which basically follows the same texts as the KJV);

(2) Joseph B. Rotherham's Emphasized Bible (which follows texts similar to those followed by the NASB and RSV); (Except in a few places, this is the best, most reliable and most accurate single translation I know);

(3) King James II Bible (translated by J. P. Green, and following the same text as that followed by the KJV); and

(4) The New American Bible (Roman Catholic)-- this translation is the most faithful to the Critical Greek Text of Nestle-Aland (26th and 27th editions) and the United Bible Society (fourth edition).

Ted when you say Bible Works, what do you mean?

pk

Hi, I would urge extreme caution with the Clear Word. All paraphrases will reflect the theology of the writer.

The author is proceeding to destroy the Adventist pillars of faith. Worse than that, what else is he doing to God’s Word? So am I to believe Jesus opens this seal and watches Himself oppose His own truth?

Here's what Revelation 6:1,2 of the Clear Word Bible says:

1. After the chorus had ended, I saw the Lamb break all the seals and unscroll the scroll. As He revealed the events of the first seal, I heard the first of the four living beings say to me in a voice that sounded like thunder, "Come! See the controversy over giving the gospel!"

2. I looked to where he was pointing and saw a galloping white horse.
The rider on it had a bow in his hand and arrows strapped to his back.
He was allowed to wear a victory wreath on his head and galloped into the future bent on stopping the gospel and overcoming the people of God. This is the first phase of the history of opposition to the gospel.

This is incorrect, white in the Bible always represents God, and the good and the right.

The white horse represents the early Christan dispensation as the early church went forward to conquer victoriously.
Here is the KJV:

Rev 6:1 And I saw when the Lamb opened one of the seals, and I heard, as it were the noise of thunder, one of the four beasts saying, Come and see.
Rev 6:2 And I saw, and behold a white horse: and he that sat on him had a bow; and a crown was given unto him: and he went forth conquering, and to conquer.


Rev 22:19 and if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the tree of life, and out of the holy city, which are written in this book. God Bless, Steve

John, we've been through this before. Young's changes repentance in the KJV to reformation. There can be no reformation without repentance first.Not only that, reformation, is not repentance.

When one repents, that is reformation, but one can reform in a worldly way without true repentance. Since repentance is the very heart of the Gospel, for that reason I would throw out Young's. You can bet the devil wants to do away with repentance.

Acts 2:38 (Young's Literal Translation)

38 and Peter said unto them, `Reform, and be baptized each of you on the name of Jesus Christ, to remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit,

This is very bad.




God Bless,

Thanks for the info steve. I do love the CW but I would never try using it to uphold stuff.

pk