Bible Doctrines affected by Modern Versions

The King James Version has been a tried and true text that shows the truths of Adventism and if you go into a Adventist church, on the whole you will find this is the Bible of preference as most modern versions have issues to say the least.

The Textus Receptus or Majority Text which is what the King James is based on has been attacked with changes, amendments, deletions, and to diminish Gods truth. Many places of learning including Adventist schools and Christian Colleges and Universities have switched over to versions using the Minority Text (Westcott and Hort or Nestle and Aland) for the classroom while still using the King James Version in public, so few notice. So many of the new versions are based on the corrupted manuscripts and deletions which form the basis of the Minority Text, that its easy to pick one up and not notice. So how are Bible doctrines affected by these modern versions based on the Minority Text, lets take a look at what these changes do in this study I came across:

MATTHEW

1:25 "her firstborn" is omitted. That Jesus was her firstborn indicates that Mary and Joseph had relations after the birth of Jesus and that others were born of her. The omission here seeks to add credence to the false doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church concerning the perpetual virginity of Mary. The Bible is clear that Jesus had brothers and sisters.

5:22 "without a cause" is removed. In the Sermon on the Mount the Lord warned of judgment for those who were angry with a brother without a cause. Should this change be accepted everyone who is angry with his brother may be judged. (The effect is to bring Jesus into judgment for failing to observe his own words in Mark 3:5 "5 And when he had looked round about on them with anger, being grieved for the hardness of their hearts, he saith unto the man, Stretch forth thine hand. And he stretched it out: and his hand was restored whole as the other." Such is contrary to the doctrine of the sinlessness of Christ.)

6:4, 6, 18 "openly" is out. It is a Bible Doctrine that Christian work done unnoticed for the glory of the Lord will one day be rewarded openly (Col. 3:4).

6:13 "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever, Amen" is deleted. This ascription of praise to "Our Father" is found in 491 out of 500 existing manuscripts.

8:29 "Jesus" is left out. The demons bore witness to the fact that Jesus was the Son of God. It was an identification of Jesus (in humanity) as the Son of God (in Deity). It affects the doctrine of the Person of Christ.

9:8 "marvelled" is changed to "were afraid." There is no reason to believe that the people were afraid because Jesus healed the sick of the palsy. There is every reason for them to marvel at the miracle.

9:13 "to repentance" is left out. The Bible doctrine of repentance is one that men would like to do away with. God requires that in order to be saved one must truly repent (Acts 17:30; 2 Peter 3:9). The word means "a change of mind" and there must be that concerning God, sin and salvation. Men think that sin does not really separate them from God--they must change their mind about that. Men think that salvation is by works--they must change their mind about that. There is nothing more evident today than the absence of repentance among those who are professing to be converted.

15:8 "draweth nigh unto me with their mouth" is left out. According to Isaiah 29:13 it belongs in because Isaiah prophesied of these hypocrites exactly that way.

16:2,3 "When it is evening ... the signs of the times" is all omitted. The Pharisees and Sadducees came looking for a sign and the signs were all around them. Jesus called them hypocrites because they could not tell the signs of the times.

17:21 Whole verse is left out. Power with God is to be had by prayer and fasting. That is a fundamental truth of the Word of God.

18:2 "Jesus" is left out. This is done many times by the corrupt Greek Text of Westcott and Hort. The MAJORITY Text continuously places the word "Jesus" in the narrative with the definite article preceding it. Thus it places him in the center of things and in command. It is doctrinally unsound for such prominence to be discarded for the word "he."

18:11 The whole verse is omitted. This verse tells us that man is lost, that he needs to be saved, and that the Son of man is the one who can do that. The doctrine of salvation through Jesus Christ is affected by this change.

18:15 "against thee" is omitted. This omission sets us up as watchdogs over others and if one sins we are to go and tell him. Such is not the teaching of Scripture. Were we to declare every sin we would be constantly busy (bodies) judging the actions and motives of everyone. This change is a very bad error.

18:35 "their trespasses" is omitted. Same thought as mentioned in 18:15.

19:9 "and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery" is removed. This is a very important doctrinal change which concerns divorce and remarriage. A man who divorces his wife and remarries commits adultery, and also the man who marries the divorced wife commits adultery.

19:16,17 "Good" before Master is omitted. In addition to that, the phrase "Why callest thou me good?" is changed to "Why askest thou me concerning the good?" Good Master is correct and Jesus responded to show the young man that only one was good and that one was God. The conclusion should have been obvious. Since Jesus was good he was necessarily God. The omission and change destroys the intended testimony to the Deity of Christ.

20:16 "for many be called, but few chosen" is left out. The Lord would have us know that many are called to inherit eternal life, but few are chosen by virtue of believing in Christ. It is a Bible doctrine that God wants all men to be saved but few will come to Christ for salvation.

21:12 "of God" is out. Jesus, who was God in the flesh, came to his own temple and said, "My house shall be called the house of prayer." It was the temple of God and the God of the temple was there.

22:30 "of God" is removed. There are good angels and fallen angels. The believers, in the resurrection, will be like the good angels "of God" who alone are in heaven.

23:8 "Master" is changed to "teacher." There are many teachers but only one master. The change here takes away the pre- eminence that God intends for his Son.

25:13 "wherein the Son of man cometh" is omitted. The warning to watch is tied to the imminent return of the Lord. The omission here does away with the doctrine of the Lord's second advent.

26:28 "new" is dropped before testament. The apostle Paul tells us that Jesus said, "this cup is the NEW testament in my blood." The change here is intended to corrupt the Word of God and to confuse Christians.

27:35 "that it might be fulfilled ... did they cast lots" is all omitted. It is very important in Matthew's gospel, where Jesus is portrayed as the King of Israel, to show that he is the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies. Here the parting of his garments and casting lots is the fulfillment of Psalm 22:18 which portrays the crucifixion of Christ. To omit this is to show the intended corruption of the Word of God by the textual critics.

28:6 "the Lord" is omitted. The very reverent angels said, "see the place where the Lord lay." They would not say, "see the place where he lay." The constant attempt to humanize Jesus and take away from his Deity does not endear the Westcott and Hort Greek Text to believers.

This is just Matthew, these changes and deletions is done all the way to Revelation...

Now how about Adventist doctrines, one of the physical manifestations of Ellen White when she went into vision was that like Daniel, the breath went completely out of her, she did not breathe, often for hours. Notice the difference between the NIV and the KJV.

Dan 10:17 (KJV) For how can the servant of this my lord talk with this my lord? for as for me, straightway there remained no strength in me, neither is there breath left in me.

Daniel 10:17 (New International Version)
17 How can I, your servant, talk with you, my lord? My strength is gone and I can hardly breathe."


We see, "I can hardly breathe" is a far cry from "neither is there breath left in me"

Notice this next example also taken from the Book of Daniel:
Dan 3:25 (KJV) He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.

Daniel 3:25 (New International Version)
25 He said, "Look! I see four men walking around in the fire, unbound and unharmed, and the fourth looks like a son of the gods."

What son of what god are they talking about here? Jupiter, Baal, Apollos? The sun god of the Babylonians, Mirtha......?

You are doing your duty faithfully, Rick, in agitating these truths.


In speaking of Sabbath schools, Mrs. White said:

There's plenty of error out there, and we are to be afraid of it, even one point of it. We are to know "every point of truth."

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

And of course the NIV changes in Hebrews 9, where the NIV changes 'holy place' to 'Most Holy Place.' Also, Colossians 2,'sabbaths' to 'a Sabbath day.' Etc."

"Hebrews 9 says that Christ entered the 'greater and more perfect tabernacle . . .' and that He entered the Holy Place. v. 12 says that Christ entered the Holy Place, ta hagia, not the Most Holy Place, hagia haggiwn. The NIV, along with others, have attempted to change that. In vv. 24ff, it says He sacrificed Himself. But your best clue is found in what you yourself have said. His stated work was 'to make intercession for us.' That is the distinctive ministry of the courtyard and the Holy Place. The work in the Most Holy Place was a work of judgment....Heb. 9 specifies that Christ entered ta hagia, the holy place, as opposed to hagia haggiwn .

And how could I forget, the King James Version says: “Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.”

According to these words, one needs to keep the commandments.

The New International Version says: ““Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and may go through the gates into the city.…“.

On what grounds does the NIV give another prerequisite? Does it change the meaning or the intent of what the writer was putting down.

Then the doctrine of the GodHead, the NIV removes the critically important word “Godhead” from Acts 17:29, Romans 1:20, and Colossians 2:9. Those are the only 3 mentions of the Word in the Bible; yet, they have all been removed. Then we have the following:

John 1:3 (New International Version, )
"3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made."

Now here is what the King James Bible says...

John 1:3, “All things were made BY HIM; and without him was not any thing made that was made.”

1st John 5:7 in the NIV reads...

1 John 5:7 (New International Version)
"7 For there are three that testify"

Here is what King James Bible reads...

1st 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.”

Subtly this is a change affecting the deity of Jesus Christ.

We find it again in NIV in Colossians 1:16...

Colossians 1:16 (New International Version)
"16 For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him."

Now here is what the King James Bible says...

Colossians 1:16, “For BY HIM were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him.”

The King James Bible says that “by Him,” that is, by Jesus Christ, were all things created. The Scriptures attribute creation directly to the Lord Jesus Christ

The NIV doesn't miss the point again in John 1:10...

John 1:10 (New International Version, ©2011)

10 He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him.

Here is what the faithful King James Bible reads...

John 1:10, “He was in the world, and the world was MADE BY HIM, and the world knew him not.”

Satan knows that if he can change each new version of the Bible just a little bit, then it won't be too long before all truth is gone.

Then we have 1st Timothy 3:16 concerning the deity of Christ. The NIV reads...

1 Timothy 3:16 (New International Version, ©2011)

"16 Beyond all question, the mystery from which true godliness springs is great:
He appeared in the flesh,
was vindicated by the Spirit,[a]
was seen by angels,
was preached among the nations,
was believed on in the world,
was taken up in glory."

Here is what the King James Bible reads...


1st Timothy 3:16, “And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.”

What Bible would you rather have in teaching others... 'GOD WAS MANIFEST IN THE FLESH', or merely 'HE APPEARED IN THE FLESH'. By removing the word “God” they have removed the deity of Christ. Julius Caesar appeared in a body. Herod appeared in a body. So what if Jesus appeared in a body, that says nothing. But the King James Bibles teaches clearly the doctrine that GOD WAS MANIFEST IN THE FLESH, i.e., Jesus came as God incarnate (in the flesh).

Now this change is curious. The NIV has removed the masculinity of the Holy Spirit. Here is John 14:26 from the NIV 2011...


John 14:26 (New International Version, ©2010)

26 But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.


Now here is what the King James Bible says...

John 14:26, “But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.”

Point after point of truth the NIV and these new versions are slowly and subtly changing, soon it will be hard to teach not only Adventist foundational pillars but even the core of Bible doctrinal truths.

Ellen White gives us some examples of the sort of "cause" for which it would be no sin to be angry.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

There is anger, and there is anger that is directed to individuals making it very personal.

"Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbor as thyself." "Thou hast answered right," said Christ; "this do, and thou shalt live." To love God with all the heart is the first great law of the universe. When the love of God fills the heart, love to our fellow men will flow forth in words and deeds as the fruit of that love.

Matthew 5:22 KJV ... and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

No one here has called anyone a fool, have they? Some have felt that what was done to Korah should be done today to certain individuals. Are such murderers?

A morning sermon from the APL (Adventist Pioneer Library):

THE ROOT OF MURDER

Of Christ it was prophesied that He should "magnify the law, and make it honourable." In the fifth chapter of Matthew we see the law as magnified by His teachings. He said: "Ye have heard that it was said, by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment; but I say unto you, that every one who is angry with his brother shall be in danger of the judgment." Matthew 5:21-22, R.V. It will be noticed that the words, "without a cause," are omitted in the Revision; the statement is absolute: every one who is angry with his brother is guilty of murder. Jesus is not disparaging the teaching of old time; He Himself is the Beginning, and He came to make plain that which was taught from the beginning. He did not mean that the commandment, "Thou shalt not kill," was incomplete, and that He was giving something better and greater, but He showed the comprehensiveness of it,-that the words, "Thou shalt not kill," mean, Thou shalt not be angry. "Love is the fulfilling of the law," and "love is not provoked."

God sees not as man sees; man looks on the outward appearance, but God looks on the heart. In every case the sin is not the thing actually done, which man can see, so much as that condition in the man, that led to the doing of it. So long as the root from which murder grows is in the heart, the man is counted as a murderer. Men naturally classify sins into different grades, and in the history of the apostate church man have been required to do penance according to the recognised degree of guilt. Some sins were classed as venial, and others as mortal. For some sins the payment of a small sum would provide satisfaction, while others could be expiated only by a vast amount of treasure or works. This is simply the religion of human nature.

Some sins are more unpopular than others; for some sins the sinner is ostracised, while others do not affect one's standing in society, but may even give one admission into what is considered the "best society." But there is no evidence in the Scriptures that the Lord thus grades sin. We have no reason to suppose that He recognises the distinction made by man, of "murder in the first degree," or "second degree." "Sin is the transgression of the law," and "the wages of sin is death." That comprehends the whole matter.

In this we are not belittling the guilt of murder, but showing where the sin Iies. He who has taken the life of another has done an awful thing, yet he is not necessary more guilty than one who has done something not so looked upon by the world. Let us consider the matter of anger: Who has not been angry? Indeed it is often thought that a display of anger is a mark of spirit, and of strength of character, and that he who cannot be provoked to anger is a milksop, and lacking in ambition. But anger is really brief madness, and to give way to it, the same as to give way to any other passion, is a mark of weakness, and not of strength. How many murders have resulted from quarrels arising over some trifle. Two friends get into a dispute, they are both quick-tempered, and one takes offence at something said by the other; retort is given, the men both lose control of them selves, and blows are exchanged. In their temporary madness a severe blow is struck, and one of them is killed. Then comes the awakening; the man would never have done such a thing if he had known what he was doing, but he was so angry that he did not know what he was about. How many times has this been given as an excuse for something that one has done; and it is true, for a person in this condition is not waster of himself.

In one sense the murder committed under such conditions is an accident; it certainly was not intentional. Yet the man is a murderer, nevertheless. The guilt lies not in the blow that was struck in a moment of unconsciousness, but in that disposition which made the blow possible. How many there are who have been saved from the gallows only by accident. For let every person who has ever been so angry that he has, even for a moment, lost control of himself, remember this: that in that moment he might have taken a life, and the fact that he might have done so, and that it was only accident or the grace of God that preserved him from the actual deed, shows that he war really guilty of the possible murder. This terrible thought should be taken to heart, and serve as an effectual warning against giving way to passion.

Take the case of the first murder ever committed. We have the secret of it given in 1 John 3:11-12. "This is the message that ye heard from the beginning, that we should love one another. Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slow his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his brother's righteous." You know the story. Cain and Abel each brought an offering to the Lord; Abel was accepted, Cain was rejected. What evil quality is it that is aroused when one finds another preferred before him?-It is jealousy. Cain killed Abel because he was jealous of him. Every jealous feeling is the seed of a murder. Nay, more than this; as with anger, so with jealousy, it not simply leads to murder, but it is murder. Every one who feels hurt because somebody else is honoured and he is passed by; every one who feels sour or morose because he has not been treated with the consideration that he thinks is his due, has violated the commandment which says, "Thou shalt not kill."

This plainly appears from the text last quoted, taken in connection with the discussion of love. "Love worketh no ill to his neighbour." "Love seeketh not its own." Love prefers another in honour; but where love is not, there is murder. Read again the verses quoted from 1 John: the commandment is that we love one another, not as Cain, who slew his brother. Here we are told, not what love is, but what it is not. Love is the opposite of the spirit that Cain manifested. Whoever does not obey the law of love, is classed with Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother.

This is further shown in the case of Joseph and his brethren: Joseph had received special marks of favour from his father, and because of his high character had been taken more fully into his confidence than his brethren. When they saw him coming to them on an errand of kind near, they said: "Behold, this dreamer cometh; come, let us kill him." They did not actually take his life, but were turned aside from it by Reuben, only as a patter of expediency. In effect, they killed him. They sold him into Egypt, only because they thought that thus they would got rid of him as effectually as by shedding his blood. This was the natural working of envy, for we read: "The Patriarchs, moved with envy, sold Joseph into Egypt." Envy, therefore, which to the sister of jealousy, is also murder. Every one who envies another, because of his goodness or any good fortune, has transgressed the commandment, "Thou shalt not kill."

The change is very subtle and the versions were new at that time and appeared improved, as even I used the NIV from college on, but take the whole work and you begin to see a shift and not for the better.

I would think this would settle the question....

Matthew 21:12-13
King James Version (KJV)
12 And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves,
13 And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves.

Here are some of the changes in Mark:

1:1 "the Son of God" is left out. These words present Jesus Christ as Deity. Such an omission is a direct attack on the person of Christ and is without doubt a doctrinal error.

1:31 "immediately" is dropped. The descriptive word tells us when the fever left her and therefore provides us with a miracle. The word left out denies the miracle and thus the one who performed it.

2:17 "to repentance" is left out. See if you see if it makes any difference:
[KJV]17 When Jesus heard it, he saith unto them, They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

[NIV]17 On hearing this, Jesus said to them, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”

3:15 "to heal sicknesses" is omitted. Jesus gave them authority to heal diseases as well as to cast out demons. Sickness is the result of the effects of sin and Christ had the authority to eliminate it as evidenced when He said, "Son, thy sins be forgiven thee" and "Rise up and walk."

4:24 "and unto you that hear shall more be given" is left out. It is a Bible teaching that those who seek truth from the Lord shall be given more truth (see John 7:17).

5:36 "as soon" is dropped. The word in the Greek is "immediately." The word immediately is constantly dropped by the revisers of the NIV.

6:11 "Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment, than for that city" is removed from the text. This passage emphasizes the great degree of responsibility that was upon those cities who heard the Lord's apostles as they preached repentance and worked miracles before them.

7:8 "as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do" is omitted. The Lord not only condemns the Pharisees for traditions of men, but he names them. It is doctrinally unsound to let men go on in traditions as we see even today and not expose them, but some don't want that seen in scripture.

9:23 "if thou canst believe" is dropped. The father had said to Jesus, "if thou canst do anything." To this lack of faith Jesus answered, "if thou canst believe." It was at once a rebuke and an encouragement to have faith in him. The father's answer in the next verse is beautiful but the Revisers ruined that also. They omitted "with tears, Lord" from the most precious answer as recorded by the Spirit of God. "24 And straightway the father of the child cried out, and said with tears, Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief."

9:47 "fire" is omitted. The words are inspired and in complete agreement with Rev. 20:15. The Wicked perishing in the lake of fire is a clear teaching especially for SDA. "15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire."Rev. 20:15.

10:21 "take up the cross" is left out. The word to the young man was to divest himself of the riches in which he trusted, consider himself dead to the world, and follow Christ into eternal life.

10:24 "for them that trust in riches" is left out. This is a very glaring doctrinal error. It is not hard to enter into the kingdom of God (salvation is a free gift through faith in Jesus Christ) but it is hard for those who trust in riches to trust Christ alone for salvation.

11:26 The whole verse is removed. "26 But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses." It is a Bible doctrine that if we confess our sins and ask God for favor he requires that our confession of sin include forgiveness of those who have sinned against us.

13:14 "spoken of by Daniel the prophet" is dropped. "14 But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, (let him that readeth understand,) then let them that be in Judaea flee to the mountains:" Without the reference to Daniel the appeal to understand is without force. Though some might connect it in their thoughts because they are familiar with Scripture, it does not follow that he is referring to Daniel.

14:22 "eat" is dropped."22 And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it, and gave to them, and said, Take, eat: this is my body." Our Lord did not give them a relic from the Last Supper to take home and put on a shelf, they ate it.

15:28 The whole verse is left out. "28 And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors." Jesus was crucified between two thieves in fulfillment of Isaiah 53:12. It is doctrinal error to eliminate clear statements concerning the fulfilling of prophecy (see Luke 24:27).

16:9-20 Twelve verses are omitted. There are many doctrines affected by the omission of these twelve verses. The resurrection of Christ is deleted. The great commission, baptism, eternal damnation and His ascension into Heaven are all taken out of the Word of God. The evidence is clear that these verses are original and to cut them out is to affect many doctrines of the Christian faith.

Yes, and what happened immediately afterward?

Matthew 21:12-16 AKJV
12 And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves,
13 And said to them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but you have made it a den of thieves.
14 And the blind and the lame came to him in the temple; and he healed them.
15 And when the chief priests and scribes saw the wonderful things that he did, and the children crying in the temple, and saying, Hosanna to the son of David; they were sore displeased,
16 And said to him, Hear you what these say? And Jesus said to them, Yes; have you never read, Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings you have perfected praise?

The blind and the lame were not afraid of Him. The children came to Him. That that is one scary dude! Read The Desire of Ages chapter 65.

Then we have the changes in Luke:

1:28 "blessed art thou among women" is omitted. There were many virgins in Israel at the time, but God chose Mary. The Roman Catholic doctrine of the immaculate conception of Mary (concerning her birth) is nothing but pagan fiction. Mary was blessed AMONG women, but not ABOVE women. The worship of Mary is contrary to Scripture. This omission is designed to lift her above others and eventually deify her.

2:14 "peace, good will toward men" is changed to "peace among men of good will." The first talks of the birth of Christ as bringing God's peace and good will (reconciliation) to men. The change offers God's peace to men who are good. That is doctrinally unsound since there is none good.

2:33 "Joseph and his mother" is changed to "his father and mother." The Spirit of God is very careful to show that our Lord Jesus Christ was born of a virgin and that he did not have a human father who begat him. The change casts doubt upon the doctrine of the virgin birth of Christ as the "seed of the woman." Later, when Mary refers to Joseph as "thy father," Jesus answers with, "wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business," meaning that God was His father (see 2:48,49).

2:40 "in spirit" is left out. That the child grew and waxed strong in spirit is evident from verse 47. It is unlikely that the Spirit of God wanted us to see how strong Jesus was with reference to his physique.

2:43 "and Joseph and his mother knew not of it" is changed to "and his parents were unaware of it." The first retains the teachings of the virgin birth, the second discards it.

4:4 "but by every Word of God" is dropped. Many are willing to agree that bread alone cannot satisfy man, but few are willing to live by every word of God. This quotation is from Deut. 8:3 where the omitted words are found. The Revisers could not leave this passage in because they have changed "every word of God" in over 5,000 places in the New Testament.

4:8 "Get thee behind me, Satan" is omitted. The devil had tempted Jesus to bypass the cross and receive the kingdom over the world. Jesus, refused to worship him.

6:10 "whole as the other" is left out. These words tell us that not only was his hand restored to use but it was whole as the other. The completeness of the miracle is attested to by these words.

9:54 "even as Elias did" is omitted. Apart from this word they had no precedent for doing such a thing.

9:55, 56 "and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of. For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them" is omitted. In reply to the disciples who thought that they could call down fire from heaven, Jesus told them that he came to save men.

11:2-4 "Our ... which art in heaven" is deleted along with "Thy will be done as in heaven, so in earth" and "but deliver us from evil." Only corrupt manuscripts can produce so many departures from the disciples prayer which is found without deletions in Matt. 6:9-13.


22:31 "And the Lord said" is dropped. The Lord Jesus was God and as such he was omnipresent and omniscient. He was present when Satan came before God and asked permission to try Peter's faith. He had prayed to the Father, as Peter's intercessor, that his faith would not fail. It was the Lord who knew all of this and warned Peter specifically.

23:23 "and of the chief priests" is omitted. The Lord was careful to let us know that the religious priests and leaders were involved in the rejection of Christ.

23:42 "And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom" is changed to "Then he said, Jesus remember me when you come into your kingdom." The acceptance that Jesus is Lord is doctrinally correct for salvation (see Rom. 10:9- 13).

24:40 The whole verse is omitted. The bodily resurrection of Christ is proven here as he showed them his hands and his feet. The omission affects Bible doctrine very much.

24:51 "and carried up into heaven" is left out. The bodily ascension of Christ into heaven is a Bible doctrine that is denied here. It leaves the Lord parted from them but does not tell us where he went. The Revisers removed the doctrine and left the Word in a poor state of disarray. Acts 1:1, 2 tells us that the "former treatise" (Luke) ended with Jesus being "taken up." That ought to be sufficient to show the Revisers are wrong.

24:52 "And ... worshipped him" is omitted by the NASV. The MAJORITY Text says, "And they having worshipped him returned to Jerusalem with great joy." The picture we have is of our Lord receiving their worship because he is God (see 4:8 where worship is to be to God only) and then before their very eyes ascending into heaven. It is a Bible doctrine that we are to worship Jesus and the omission by the NASV is a clear denial of that doctrine.

Next lets look at the changes in John:

1:18 "the only begotten Son" is changed to "The only begotten God." Such a phrase is foreign to Scripture. It accommodates the Arian teaching that Christ was a lesser deity created by God.

1:27 "He it is... who is preferred before me" is removed. This change removes the pre-eminence and pre-existence of Christ.

3:13 "which is in heaven" is omitted. 13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven. The omission is a corruption introduced by those who do not believe in the perfect and absolute Deity of Christ.

3:15 "should not perish" is removed. This deletion removes the opposite of everlasting life, which is to perish. The doctrine of eternal death for the wicked who perish in the Lake of Fire is weakened by the change.

3:16 "his only begotten Son" is changed to "the only begotten Son." The word HIS marks Jesus Christ out as God's own peculiar son in a relationship that no one else has. The Deity of Christ is involved and is thereby weakened (3:17 also changed).

4:42 "the Christ" is left out. The purpose of John's gospel as given in 20:31 was to lead people to believe that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God. That belief was to bring life to them. To omit it here is to deny the purpose of the inspired writer.

5:16 "and sought to slay him" is omitted. The Scripture teaches us that on many occasions they tried to kill Jesus but by supernatural power were kept from doing so (see John 18:6)and they could not take him until his hour was come.

6:47 "on me" is left out. "47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life." The object of faith has been removed here. Everlasting life does not come to those who believe, but to those who believe on Christ. This is doctrinal error of the gravest sort and has been carried over into the NASV and NIV.

7:8 The little word "yet" is dropped and the result is that the Lord appears to lie to his brothers, since he did go up to the feast. "8 Go ye up unto this feast: I go not up yet unto this feast: for my time is not yet full come." There is a world of difference between "I go not up YET" and "I go not up." The sinlessness of Christ is an indispensable doctrine of the Christian faith and lying is sin.

7:53-8:11 The whole story of the woman taken in adultery is omitted. The thrust of John 8:11 "She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more." is lost.

8:38 The words "my Father" and "your father" are intended to show the difference between his father and their father, who was Satan. "38 I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye do that which ye have seen with your father." By removing the word "my" and "your" there is a deliberate attempt to remove the meaning.

8:39 "If ye were Abraham's children" is changed to "if ye are Abraham's children." The Lord intended them to see that they were not Abraham's children at all.

9:4 "I must work the works of him that sent me" is changed to "We must work the works of him that sent us." The uniqueness of Christ as the Sent One of the Father is destroyed and he is placed equally with the disciples as sent from God to do the work of God. This is an attack on the Person and Work of Christ. Jesus was sent by the Father and the disciples were sent by Jesus, "as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you."

9:35 "the Son of God" is changed to "the Son of man." The thing to be believed in John's gospel is that Jesus is the Son of God (20:31). The change by the minority texts is not warranted.

10:38 "that ye may know, and believe" is changed to "that ye may know, and understand." The union of Christ and the Father within the Godhead is that which we are to believe and rely upon for the certainty of our salvation. To understand the union is beyond human comprehension and if it could be understood, that would still not be the equivalent of salvation.

11:41 "where the dead was laid" is removed. "41 Then they took away the stone from the place where the dead was laid. And Jesus lifted up his eyes, and said, Father, I thank thee that thou hast heard me." This is an attempt to cloud the evident miracle which followed. (see also 12:2 where "which had been dead" is also removed).

I came across a Adventist.org site on choosing a Bible translation that gave the following engaging explanation for "What Should We Use?"

"Clearly, there are substantial differences between the different translations. The old saying that one Bible is as good as another simply does not hold true. With this in mind, it is my belief that Christians are best off using an essentially literal translation, particularly for in-depth study and public reading. Since all Scripture is inspired by God (2 Tim. 3:16), we should seek to read translations that reflect the Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek words to the greatest degree possible. Jesus Himself said, “not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law” (Matt. 5:18, ESV), and we should be cautious about translations that alter the inspired Word of God.

Another reason for concern is that, in cases where there is more than one possible meaning of a biblical text, Christians reading dynamic equivalent translations or free paraphrases are frequently given only the translators’ interpretation. Here’s an example from Mark 9:24:

“Immediately the father of the child cried out and said, ‘I believe; help my unbelief!” (ESV).

“Immediately the boy’s father cried out and said, ‘I do believe; help my unbelief’” (NASB).

These essentially literal translations preserve the father’s somewhat confusing statement basically as he said it. When the father said, “I believe; help my unbelief,” did he mean that he wanted Jesus to help him overcome his unbelief or was he affirming that he already believed and wanted even more faith? We don’t know for sure, but it’s something we need to grapple with when we read the text. However, notice how dynamic equivalent translations and free paraphrases deal with this verse.

“Immediately the boy’s father exclaimed, “I do believe; helps me overcome my unbelief!” (NIV).

“Right away the boy’s father shouted, ‘I do have faith! Please help me to have even more’” (CEV).

“The father cried out, ‘Teacher, I do believe, but please help me overcome my unbelief! Please give me the kind of faith I need!’” (Clear Word).

The wording provided by these translations is so different because they present varying interpretations of what the father really meant to say. When the translator does the hard work of interpreting challenging passages, individual Christians are deprived of the opportunity to think for themselves. The reality is that Christians should expect to wrestle with difficult Bible passages since this is an important part of spiritual growth..."
http://www.adventist.org/pt/espiritualid...le-translation/

Very interesting to say the least..........

Rick, you should only read the scriptures in Hebrew and Greek.

Not a bad idea, that is how Jerome was able to translate as he learned Hebrew and was able to compare as had fluency in Greek.

The King James Bible states in 1st Timothy 3:16 that "GOD WAS MANIFEST IN THE FLESH"; but the NIV waters it down to... 'he' was revealed but by not saying who, diminishing His deity and character..

Here is the NIV:
1 Timothy 3:16
New International Version (NIV)
"16 Beyond all question, the mystery from which true godliness springs is great:He appeared in the flesh, was vindicated by the Spirit,[a]was seen by angels,was preached among the nations,
was believed on in the world, was taken up in glory."

and compare to the KJV which clearly declares Christ:
1 Timothy 3:16
King James Version (KJV)
"16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory."

Then we have in Philippians 2:6 of the NIV, Jesus is no longer EQUAL with God, but something else:

Philippians 2:6
New International Version (NIV)
"6 Who, being in very nature[a] God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;"

and here is the KJV:
Philippians 2:6
King James Version (KJV)
"6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:"

So why are you quoting the KJV and NIV instead of the Hebrew and Greek?

Are Adventist doctrines so fragile that one can't find them in a version other than the KJV?

Are we trying to see how close we can get to the edge of the cliff without falling off?



From the above statements one might reasonably conclude that a tainted Bible is more dangerous than an openly spiritualistic book.

As an old saying goes...

"A tablespoon of wine in a barrel full of sewage is sewage. A tablespoon of sewage in a barrel full of wine is sewage." The problem with the latter is that someone might not realize they would get sick by drinking it--if they did not detect that the sewage had been added.

I want to drink of the pure water of life, untainted by sewage.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

EGW: "It is thus that errors are received that captivate and ruin the soul." Is the error that we can only use the KJV, as it certainly has captivated some. Are the problems with various translations? Yep! Including the KJV. EGW used other versions. How could she drink such sewage? The issue is not what YOU read, it is what others want to read that don't know the truth. Do you condemn them for using a modern version, or do you use that version to teach them the truth? Are SdA beliefs that fragile? I think NOT!

APL,

I want you to teach me where in the Bible I'm told to fast in order to be able cast out demons to relieve someone of demonic possession. Use your NIV.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Are you saved by works????

I'm saved by accepting, loving and following Jesus. What about you?

Jesus told His disciples to fast and pray in order to cast out some demons. But according to your Not-Inspired Version, Jesus didn't say any such thing. This is a doctrinal omission and a grave error.

Perhaps you have not dealt with anyone who was demon possessed. I have. It happens in the world still today. And I treasure the instructions of Jesus, because I have also had the same experience that the nine disciples had who asked Jesus how to do it. He told them to fast and pray.

Does your NIV teach this? Try to find this doctrinal truth in it. Then remember what the Bible says:

"If they speak not according to this Word, it is because there is no light in them." If, therefore, your Bible has been purposely sliced and diced to remove a doctrine like this, it should be a big red flag. There is no light in it.



Are we saved by works? That's a loaded question. We are saved by works--Christ's works. But we cannot be saved without our own works too.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

APL,

Please tell us where in your NIV one can find Jesus' instructions to fast and pray to cast out demons.

Is this doctrine too fragile in your Bible--so fragile that it has already been broken? Is it only in the KJV and not in your NIV?

You are the one who asked the question about the fragility of our doctrines. Please point us to where this truth can be found in the NIV.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

This is this a formula? No. What is do the verses in question really say? Is says that the problem is unbelief. Unbelief shut them out from deeper sympathy with Christ, and the carelessness with which they regarded the sacred work committed to them, had caused their failure in the conflict with the powers of darkness. Though I could not get that from your question. EGW fills in the story, "the selection of the three disciples to accompany Jesus to the mountain had excited the jealousy of the nine. Instead of strengthening their faith by prayer and meditation on the words of Christ, they had been dwelling on their discouragements and personal grievances. In this state of darkness they had undertaken the conflict with Satan." {DA 431.1}

There you have the truth. There is not a formulaic process. It is faith that works. And every version I read, I get that fact. However, even the NIV that looked at had your formula, with a footnote. The truth is, our Adventist doctrines can be shown to be true from modern versions.

A footnote? A footnote. You're telling us to go and find our doctrines in footnotes because they don't exist in the text itself.

That's the NIV for you. You better not buy one that has only the text without the footnotes.

Regarding fasting, Jesus told the disciples to fast. Does it matter why He told them to do so? Let the Holy Spirit impress upon each reader the truth of His words for themselves. The problem is that the NIV changes the truth to a lie.





That looks like a different doctrine to me. The NIV translators were so intent on removing "fasting" that they inserted the word "only" to indicate that there were no further instructions given by Jesus than that of prayer, and they removed the entire verse from Matthew's account. (See also 1 Corinthians 7:5.)

Nor is there any verse in the Bible in the NIV that presents Jesus' full instructions for fasting when dealing with demons.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Oh no, it does not matter. God said, I believe it, that settles it. NOT.

Your whole question ignores the situation. You promote a formula, but ignore the real truth which is a firm solid faith in Jesus.

By so saying, you would imply that Jesus' words are not "the real truth."

I'm sure Jesus is unhappy with your careless disregard of His words.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

If you were in the wilderness with the Children of Israel, you just died.



You just stopped to argue against Jesus' words in this thread. Consider well your words. The angels have them all recorded, and you will meet them again.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

No, these are not necessarily Jesus words. The textual evidence is not clear that they are, and that is the point of contention. The verse before however is sufficient to answer the question to the problem.

As for the other contention, the following is clear: Isaiah 1:18 Come now, and let us reason together, said the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.

I guess we should not reason it out with God... Just pray and fast. That's it. No reasoning why it is we do this. But again, EGW is clear on the situation at hand. Unbelief. The same thing that Israel of old never overcame. It remains today.

APL,

You wrest the scriptures and the words of Jesus?

We know quite well enough what Jesus said. But the NIV wishes to obscure that "inconvenient truth." No one really likes to fast and afflict his or her soul, right? So, they just drop that requirement out of the Bible for you and lighten your burden.

What does Mrs. White teach? You apply to her for more understanding, so why not look more closely at what she really teaches.



In the above it is clear that those who do battle with Satan are enjoined to fast and pray. Those who do not, but follow what is "popular," have no power against Satan.

Mrs. White followed the full text of Jesus' words, as faithfully presented in the King James Version. May I call it the King Jesus Version? His words are honored in it, but despised in the NIV.

I can see you have been influenced by the subtle errors of the modern versions, APL, but Mrs. White never set aside fasting as being unnecessary as you would imply.

She said things like these:



"Prayer AND fasting" not "ONLY by prayer." Mrs. White never once drops the words "fasting" from Jesus' statement. Why does the NIV do so? Mrs. White further speaks of "fasting" using her own words and expressions as being a very necessary part of our religious experience in seeking God with humility.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Interesting you change the subject of the need for fasting to cast out devils, to fasting in general. Why? Did you read EGW comments on the verses in question? What was the issue? Jealousy, unbelief, self-serving, lack in faith. That is what we need.

APL,

I didn't change the subject, I added to the subject. But, changing the subject is what you are doing with Christ's words. Not only the subject--you are quite willing to change the words themselves, as if they were not important.

I guess you might as well use your NIV. It agrees with your doctrine.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

LOL. I'll add that to my Greenisms.

Well this is interesting, as many more are noticing the danger as the NIV does further changes, which are not for the better...

'I know many people who read, memorize, and love their NIV Bibles. Unfortunately a revision to this particular translation that has been in the works now for years will make it one of the more inaccurate and confusing translations available. This is perhaps why the Sothern Baptist Convention passed a resolution opposing it.

The most important difference that NIV users will see will be the acceptance of gender neutral language in many instances. There is a shift from terms like “he/him/his/himself” to more neutral (and less accurate) terms like “anyone” or “whoever.” There are also instances where terms like “son” or “father” have been exchanged with “child” and “parent.” NIV users will notice many similarities to the TNIV gender neutral language that was rejected by so many upon its publication (The TNIV will no longer be distributed).'

http://desiringvirtue.com/2011/06/disturbing-changes-to-the-niv/

'The updated NIV Bible has gained another critic: the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod. In a recent report, a panel of Lutherans cautioned against use of the new NIV over gender-related issues.

"The use of inclusive language in NIV 2011 creates the potential for minimizing the particularity of biblical revelation and, more seriously, at times undermines the saving revelation of Christ as the promised Savior of humankind," the Commission on Theology and Church Relations Executive Staff stated in an August report.

"Pastors and congregations of the LCMS should be aware of this serious weakness. In our judgment this makes it inappropriate for NIV 2011 to be used as a lectionary Bible or as a Bible to be generally recommended to the laity of our church."
..Critics include the Committee on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood and the Southern Baptist Convention, which officially rejected the revised NIV last year, saying it "alters the meaning of hundreds of verses, most significantly by erasing gender-specific details which appear in the original language."

..The Commission on Theology and Church Relations of the LCMS has long recognized that language evolves. It also acknowledged the intent of the Committee on Bible Translation to try to communicate the meaning of the Bible's texts in English as it is used today.

But the commission took issue with some of the substitutions for masculine singular pronouns.

"While there may be many examples in which such substitution does not change the sense or inherent intent of the passage," the commission reported, the approach is advised against because "of its potential to alter significantly the meaning of passages."

Among the changes made in the updated NIV is the substitution of "he," "him," and "his" for "they," "their," and "them."

The commission provided two significant examples where such a revision proved to affect the meaning of Scripture "adversely."

Example one:

Genesis 1:26-27 in NIV 2011 reads: "Then God said, 'Let us make mankind [collective noun substitution for "man"] in our image, in our likeness, so that they [the plural pronoun is in the original] may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.' So God created mankind [collective noun substitution for "man"] in his own image, in the image of God he created them [plural pronoun substitution for "him"]; male and female he created them."

In the first substitution of "mankind" for "man," the particularity of the first man is made unclear. The rationale for this would seem to be the desire to emphasize that all humanity is created in God's image, but the original text itself had made that abundantly clear already by paralleling "man" in the first clause of verse 26 with "they" in the following clause. In verse 27, the second substitution of "mankind" for "man" again undermines the particularity of Adam's creation. Moreover, when coupled with the substitution of "them" for "him" as the verse continues, the progression of the verse is obfuscated. The original verse itself progresses from the particular creation of Adam-the one man who is father of all creation, created in God's image, and in whom all will die through his sin (Rom 5:12)-to the male and female, which is paralleled to him. The original text then preserves both the particularity and universality which NIV 2011 undermines.

Example two:

Psalm 8:4-5 in NIV 2011 reads: "What is mankind [collective noun substitution for "man"] that you are mindful of them [plural substitution for "him"], Human beings [plural noun substitution for "son of man"] that you care for them [plural substitution for "him"]? You have made them [plural substitution for "him"] a little lower than the angels and crowned them [plural substitution for "him"] with glory and honor."

Once again, the rationale for the translation changes seems to be the desire to emphasize a universal truth about all humanity-that humankind has received glory and honor as the crown of creation. The translation decisions, however, obfuscate other things. First, and most importantly, the decision to use plurals here vitiates the Messianic meaning of this psalm, its particular application to Christ. Hebrews 2:5-9 quotes Ps 8:4-5 and notes that these verses testify to our Lord Jesus. He is the Man to whom the Lord gives all glory and honor; the Son of Man to whom all creation is subject. He is the One who exceeds the angels in glory and honor, even though he was made to be lower than them for our salvation.

Second, we should note that the substitution of a generic term like "human being" or "human beings" for "son of man" (a consistent pattern in NIV 2011), impoverishes the understanding of "Son of Man" as the self-designation our Lord uses throughout the Gospels. Jesus uses a term (a particular idiom, "son of man") from the Old Testament that indicates full humanity and refers it to himself. This is of great importance, especially when it is seen in the light of Daniel 7:13-14. There that same term, "son of man," is used in a prophecy of our Savior's incarnation, where "one like a son of man" is "given dominion and glory and a kingdom" in which all nations are included under a rule that shall never be destroyed.'

http://www.christianpost.com/news/luther...language-81060/

Never thought about that, but yes, they are creating or taking out doctrines by footnotes, not keeping the words given by inspiration.

I see this as your best way of responding to an "inconvenient truth." Instead of admitting the light you've laid eyes upon, you trivialize it away, making a joke of the light giver.

May the Lord open your eyes.



Mrs. White never spoke against Jesus' words regarding fasting in this situation, but rather upholds them. How can you claim Jesus meant something else?

Does it matter whether the fasting was necessary on account of unbelief, or pride, or selfishness, or sin? Would it matter if it were needful on account of jealousy, evil surmisings, or gossip? Would it matter if it were lust, adultery, or pornography?

No. The NIV translators are basing their claim to a "contention" on the words based on a Catholic edited family of manuscripts that represents between 3% and 5% of the total body of Bible manuscripts we have. The Majority Text is quite consistent on these things, and there is no question as to what Christ said. If there were, Ellen White reiterated the truth for us.

Either you accept the doctrine of fasting, or you reject it. Your choice.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

And EGW often quoted from the marginal notes. Why? Why not quote the "inspired" words?

Is it not interesting that EGW on a number of occasions corrected the KJV? Places in the book of Daniel being one. John 12:32 being another. The KJV reads, John 12:32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me. Red being the words of Christ, and grey italics being a word that is supplied by the translators. What? And uninspired word in the text? Yes. EGW does quote the this version and at times included the word "men", at least it is in the text of her writing. But when it really counted, she did NOT quote the word.

"Now is the judgment of this world," Christ continued; "now shall the prince of this world be cast out. And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all unto Me. This He said, signifying what death He should die." This is the crisis of the world. If I become the propitiation for the sins of men, the world will be lighted up. Satan's hold upon the souls of men will be broken. The defaced image of God will be restored in humanity, and a family of believing saints will finally inherit the heavenly home. This is the result of Christ's death. The Saviour is lost in contemplation of the scene of triumph called up before Him. He sees the cross, the cruel, ignominious cross, with all its attending horrors, blazing with glory. {DA 625.4}

But the work of human redemption is not all that is accomplished by the cross. The love of God is manifested to the universe. The prince of this world is cast out. The accusations which Satan has brought against God are refuted. The reproach which he has cast upon heaven is forever removed. Angels as well as men are drawn to the Redeemer. "I, if I be lifted up from the earth," He said, "will draw all unto Me." {DA 626.1}

The word MEN, is left out. It is not an inspired word. Does this negate the KJV? Not at all!

Green - you started this discourse speaking about casting out devils, then going off on fasting in general. The "in general" part was not relevant to your initial question. And IF you read EGW in context, the reason that the disciples could not cast out the demon was because of their lack of connection with God, they jealousy and murmuring. To teach, you must fast and pray, without giving the meaning why you must fast and pray, leaves one empty.

APL,

Those who will not face the truth when it runs counter to cherished opinion will not be convinced though given the words of Christ Himself. That is amply evident here. Enjoy your opinion.

It is further evident that the NIV disregards the words of Christ Himself, and does not report them all to us. Enjoy your NIV.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Green - there are many other versions. ESV, RV, RSV, NRSV, AAT, JBP, FBV, AKJV, YLT, NASB, LEB, TEV, NLT, ASV, CJB, ABP, ANT, WEB, The Scriptures, NKJV, NET, NCV, Lamsa, EMTV, Brenton's (1851 English translation of the Septuagint). I also have TCW and (shutter) NWT, CEV, ERV, MLV and LITV. I often read and compare these. The one I personally mark up is the AKJV most of time, but also in others when the sense is clear and unambiguous (to me). I have all of these both on my PC and my phone, all with a number of dictionaries including the SDABD, and the SDABC fully integrated with all these versions in one program! And a number of other Bible commentaries. Oh, thats right, you don't like the SDABC. Some versions has verses which are just so well put. Some have verses which are completely wrong! And this included the KJV in places. So please, enjoy your opinion. I know people who will not read the KJV. They would rather read the Bible in English! And guess what? You can still get the truth from many of these versions. You (well, I don't know about you, you probably never open anything but the KJV), can prove the divinity of Christ from the NWT to JWs. Are they going to read the KJV? I'm sure you never open a Douay. The same program I have all of EGW's published books and many of periodicals and other published texts. And the program itself is free on the PC! (I have all of EGW's published material via the CD and phone app). Oh yeah, I have the NIV84 and NIV2011 too.

Who is it that has cherished opinions?

When it negates, diminishes or sets aside a core biblical truth, it is changing Gods Word and in my opinion not acceptable for those who truly spiritually see and hear and follow God.

When it dims the truth to whose perception? Many times verses left out of modern versions, make no change overall as the same thought is expressed in other locations. And we are speaking about in this thread only ENGLISH. There are many many other languages. It is interesting that In the 1800's after publishing of the RV, that a number of Adventist writers pointed out the benefits of the changes, clearing up of the sense. EGW used the ASV and RV, and not once that I know of ever warn anyone about the newer versions. That is not to say to approach the subject with a blind eye, but also note that the KJV is also flawed in places.

Rick, it doesn't appear you answered APL. In fact, it appears that you objected to APL and EGW for leaving out "men". And how do you decide on "core biblical truths"? Is it based upon what the KJV says? Or is it based upon what you say?

Rick, what is stopping you from following your own advice of it not being a bad idea of only quoting from the Hebrew and Greek?

I didn't change my socks, I replaced them.
The weather didn't change, it only became snowy.
You don't have to change your doctor, you only have to get a new one.



"Blessings"

Look at the text and see if the purpose is not clear, it is to change truth and core doctrines, but do it slowly, like the tale of the frog as they turned up the heat slowly........

Then you have the changes in Acts:

2:30 "according to the flesh he would raise up Christ" is omitted. It was not just that one of David's descendants would sit upon the throne, but that his greater Son would be raised from the dead in a body of flesh.

2:47 "to the church" is left out. Believers are added to the Church which is Christ's body. The Church is an organism, and when persecutors touched the Church they touched Christ (see 9:5).

3:21 "all" is dropped in front of "his holy prophets." God has spoken of the Kingdom age by the mouth of ALL his prophets since the world began. In harmony with this Jesus spoke to the two on the road to Emmaus about himself from "all the prophets" (see Luke 24:27). There are others in the world who claim to be prophets but they do not speak of Jesus and his kingdom, therefore they are not of God.

3:26 "Jesus" is dropped. The specific name leaves no doubt as to whom God raised up from the dead to offer again the kingdom to Israel.

4:24 "thou art God" is changed to "thou art he who." There is no reason to accept MINORITY manuscripts when they want to change "God" to "he who" (see 1 Tim. 3:16).

6:3 The word "Holy" is dropped. When God led the Church to choose deacons he made it clear that they should be controlled by the Holy Spirit. Many churches since have appointed men who had a lot of spirit and were full of enthusiasm, but that is not the same as being full of the "Holy Ghost." Godly living is required of deacons and it is contrary to sound doctrine to leave out "Holy." The Greek word for spirit can refer to man's spirit or God's spirit and lest we should err here God inserted the word "Holy" before spirit.

6:8 "faith" is changed to "grace." The Bible does not teach that Christians are full of grace but rather that they receive grace. The only one who was "full of grace" was our Lord Jesus Christ (see John 1:14). The measure of faith is given to every believer to profit thereby.

7:30 "of the Lord" is omitted. It was not just an angel that appeared to Moses at the burning bush, it was an angel of Jehovah (the Lord). This was an Old Testament appearance of the eternal Son of God in angelic form. In plain words it was the Lord who appeared to Moses (see Exodus 3:1-5).

7:37 "The Lord your" and "him shall ye hear" are omitted. This is contrary to the original quotation as found in Deut. 18:15. In Stephen's sermon the "him shall ye hear" is most important since those who refuse Christ's words will be judged by God.

8:18 "Holy" is dropped. Four times here in four verses the Holy Ghost is mentioned. To drop the word Holy in one out of the four times is to create confusion and doubt concerning the Word of God.

8:37 The whole verse is omitted. This leaves the question of the Ethiopian eunuch unanswered. Philip's answer is correct in that belief must be from the heart prior to baptism. The eunuch's confession of faith is in exact agreement with what is required for salvation as given in John 20:31. Souls have been led to Christ with this verse of Scripture and it is doctrinally unsound to remove it.

9:5,6 "it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him" is all omitted. This passage gives us a picture of Saul resisting the Spirit of God as he was under conviction. Saul's response is to submit to the Lord's direction, having been humbled before the Lord. Without Saul's "what wilt thou have me to do?" there could be no "arise and go."

9:29 "Jesus" is left out. The reason the Jews went about to slay Saul was not because he spake boldly in the name of the Lord, but because he spoke of the Lord Jesus.

10:6 "he shall tell thee what thou oughtest to do" is left out. The truth is that Cornelius was not saved (see 11:14) and that there was something which he had to do. He must believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.

10:30 "fasting" is left out. Fasting, to find the will of God, is a Biblical doctrine.

10:32 "who, when he cometh, shall speak unto thee" is omitted.

15:24 "Ye must be circumcised and keep the law" is left out. This is exactly the reason why the Jerusalem council was called or convened. There is no doubt that the reply to the Gentile converts made mention of the all important question.

16:31 "Christ" is omitted. The word speaks of the Deity of Christ. It pointed the Philippian jailer to the God he must believe in for salvation.

18:5 "was pressed in the Spirit" is changed to "was engrossed with the word." When Paul was teaching he was always engrossed with the Word. In Corinth Paul had been laying the groundwork at the synagogue concerning what the Scriptures had to say about their Messiah (Christ). When Silas and Timothy came, Paul was under compulsion to show that Jesus was the Christ.

19:10 "Jesus" is left out. For the heathen to hear about the Lord is not enough. They must hear that Jesus is that Lord.

20:28 "of God" is changed to "of the Lord." The word lord is sometimes used of men and sometimes of God. Therefore, the change does not affirm the Deity of Christ.

21:25 "they observe no such thing, save only that" is omitted.

26:28 "almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian" is changed to "do you think that in such a short time you can persuade me to be a Christian?" King Agrippa was "almost persuaded" and he was in possession of the truth concerning salvation. The change would have us believe that he needed more information and perhaps Paul was too quick to expect a decision.

Why not follow your own advice, Rick?

Are you asking the Greek and Hebrew text to compare, might get deep.

Why not be deep, rather than shallow?

What about the RC's Jerusalem Bible where their change of the Ten Commandments is written down?

Daniel warned us about that change.

What was their change of the Ten Commandments? Could you list it?

If you look in the NIV, you will find it has taken out something that clearly changes understanding, as it takes out a key name, Lucifer, for this term for Satan does not appear on its pages. The only reference to the name of the one who led the revolt against God is found in the King James Bible in Isaiah 14:12. The referenced Scripture, and the verses following, have always been identified with the fall of Satan, and the names Lucifer and Satan have become synonymous and is the same as the one Jesus described in Luke 10:18 where He said, "I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven."

Now the name that the NIV has substituted in the place of Lucifer is interesting, as this is doctrinal and has far reaching effects on the credibility and reliability of the NIV as a Christian Bible. Looking at the Scripture below you will see the morning star is identified as the one who fell from heaven. A brief look at the referenced Scripture will clearly verify the doctrinal differences between the two.

New International Version

Isaiah 14:12-15 (NIV) " How you have fallen from heaven, O morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations! You said in your heart, "I will ascend to heaven; I will raise my throne above the stars of God; I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly, on the utmost heights of the sacred mountain. I will ascend above the tops of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High." But you are brought down to the grave, to the depths of the pit.


Isaiah 14:12-15
King James Version (KJV)
12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.15 Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.

Lets look at several references in both the NIV and the KJV where these terms are used together.

New International Version

2 Pet 1:19 (NIV)

"And we have the word of the prophets made more certain, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts."

Rev 2:28 (NIV)

"I will also give him the morning star."

Rev 22:16 (NIV)

"I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star."




King James Version (KJV)

Revelation 2:28
28 And I will give him the morning star.



Revelation 22:16
16 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.


Does anyone see any problem with the NIV here. Well if a person is to accept the NIV as the Word of God, then he or she must also accept that it was Jesus who was cast from heaven in the event described in Isaiah 14:12. Hmmm.....

Morning star is an acceptible translation. And it does not destroy doctrine, but shows how really exalted the fallen one was!
Isaiah 14:12 HowH349 are you fallenH5307 from heaven,H4480 H8064 O Lucifer,H1966 sonH1121 of the morning!H7837 how are you cut downH1438 to the ground,H776 which did weakenH2522 H5921 the nations!H1471

H7837
- Original: הילל
- Transliteration: heylel
- Phonetic: hay-lale'
- Definition: Lucifer = light-bearer
1. shining one, morning star, Lucifer
a. of the king of Babylon and Satan (fig.)
2. (TWOT) 'Helel' describing the king of Babylon
- Origin: from [url=tw://[self]?H1984]H1984[/url] (in the sense of brightness)
- TWOT entry: 499a
- Part(s) of speech: Noun Masculine

- Strong's: From [url=tw://[self]?H1984]H1984[/url] (in the sense of brightness); the morning star: - lucifer.
Total KJV Occurrences: 1
• Lucifer, 1
Isa_14:12

APL,

"Morning star" refers to Jesus. It is one of His titles. It is one which He gives Himself. As it says in Revelation, quoting Jesus, "I AM ... the bright and morning star."

To find a verse in that Bible which speaks of the "morning star" and then further elaborates regarding how said star fell is to find a serious blasphemy. Jesus never fell!

The NIV translation is not too far different from some of our modern songs which like to imply that Jesus fell, such as the popular song "Above All." But Jesus never "took the fall" and He was certainly not "trampled." Genesis 3:15 tells us who was going to be stepped on, and it wasn't Jesus!

Lucifer may have been a son of God, but He wasn't the morning star, i.e. the "sun," aka "greater light." That Fount of light is Jesus' place alone. Therefore, the NIV has some serious error in its rendition of that verse.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Green, Morning Star was also a title of Satan before his fall. He was the covering cherub. Second only to Christ. Thus producing something called, the great controversy.

Where is your evidence for this?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Considering the Bible calls Jesus the "Morning Star," and we want to have Jesus in our lives, it is blasphemous for the NIV translators to presume to give this title to Jesus' enemy.

I want Jesus. I do not want Lucifer in my life.



Do you want to be given Satan, the Great Deceiver in place of Jesus Christ? Satan may try to present himself as Christ, but he can but be a false christ. The NIV translators have helped to present the Fallen One as though he were in the position of Christ, the light of the world. But Lucifer has never been a light to this world.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Evidence - - do I need to repeat my post above?

APL,

I will not accept evidence from a purely human source. I need it from a Divine source. If we might question the translation quality of the NIV, then it should not come from there, nor from Bible commentaries which might put their own spin on things. Even the modern concordances have begun changing definitions for these things. As there is no issue with translation of Mrs. White's writings, use her. She wrote in plain English. Give me something from her pen that supports your assertion.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Green - did the great controversy start on this world? NO. Satan is not the light of this world, this is true. But does not your point prove.

Does it surprise you that there is more than one morning star???

I see Mrs. White as clearly speaking of Christ, and only of Christ, as the bright and morning star. I have not seen her referring to Satan or Lucifer in this manner. In fact, we can expect that Jesus' position as the Morning Star will be undermined by the devil, because this is one of the last truths for the world to be proclaimed in the third angel's message.



Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

There is no undermining of Christ's true position. Job 38:7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

Hm - "morning stars", pleural? Yes.

What does "Lucifer" mean? LIGHT BEARER. Does this surprise you??? This was Satan before his fall, the light bearer.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

The Great Controversy

A compassionate Creator, in yearning pity for Lucifer and his followers, was seeking to draw them back from the abyss of ruin into which they were about to plunge. But His mercy was misinterpreted. Lucifer pointed to the long-suffering of God as an evidence of his own superiority, an indication that the King of the universe would yet accede to his terms. If the angels would stand firmly with him, he declared, they could yet gain all that they desired. He persistently defended his own course, and fully committed himself to the great controversy against his Maker. Thus it was that Lucifer, "the light bearer," the sharer of God's glory, the attendant of His throne, by transgression became Satan, "the adversary" of God and holy beings and the destroyer of those whom Heaven had committed to his guidance and guardianship. {PP 39.2}

Lucifer, LIGHT BEARER, SHARER of GOD'S GLORY! This was Satan before the fall.

Yet why take out what was clear, and then redirect it to a completely opposite meaning. Did they do it by mistake, Hmmmmmmm I dont think so................

Now if you look it seems that the NIV goes out of its way to affect the deity of Christ. We see how the NIV expresses John 1:18 and John 3:16 to present the possibility of there being more than one God and to drop the term "begotten" from these important verses:

New International Version
John 1:18 (NIV)
18 No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known.

It seems there are two Gods expressed here. You will notice that the NIV takes every opportunity to attack the doctrine of the Godhead and come up with some other god. The King James Bible has a doctrinally accurate expression of this verse.

John 1:18
King James Version (KJV)

18 No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

The term "begotten" is important in identifying that Jesus as part of the Godhead, and not another god. Now look at the changes in the verse, John 3:16. You can readily see the creep away from true understanding to the dangers such as Arianism, in changing "the only begotten Son".

New International Version
John 3:16 (NIV)
16 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.

John 3:16
King James Version (KJV)
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Rick - it is still clear. Satan was the LIGHT BEARER. And it is not the opposite meaning. Satan was (past tense) the morning star, the light bearer, Lucifer. This is what Isaiah 14 is staying!

Amen, the Holy Spirit has given you a gift in clarity of words my brother.

Clarity? - - Satan WAS the light bearer. To deny this brings darkness.

APL,

There is a distinction between "light bearer" and "Morning Star." I have no problem with the fact that Lucifer was a light bearer. So may we all be. Joseph was a light bearer in Egypt.



But Joseph is never called the "Morning Star." Consider the spirit of prophecy as represented by the moon. This "lesser light" can only reflect what it has received from the sun, the greater light. Jesus is that sun, that Morning Star, which rises to light our planet every morning. All of God's prophets speak that which they have received of God. They reflect, as the moon, the light of the Morning Star. Lucifer used to reflect that too. But he never originated that light. All truth originates with God.

It's a shame that some Bible translators are so careless and indistinct in their utterances as to muddy up the water of life. They have sown tares. An Enemy hath done this.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

After doing some research on this, I stand corrected, as it seems that they didn't change it in their Bible, however, they do leave out the 2nd one in their list and make two out of the last one.

Here's their link that shows this:

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/command.htm

Here's another interesting link that shows the difference in the Roman Catholic Church's list from the Protestant Church's list:

http://www.catholicbible101.com/thetencommandments.htm

As they didn't really change it in their own Bible, what they have done could be discussed in detail in another thread.

No body is suggesting that Satan is the source of "light". Go back and read the EGW quote I provided. Satan was next to Christ. As for "morning star", perhaps you should skip the English and only read in the Hebrew and Greek. But you might find then they use the same name for different people it might still confuse you, such as Jesus vs Joshua in Hebrews 4, which I'm not sure you have clarity on there either.

Isaiah 14:12 HowH349 are you fallenH5307 from heaven,H4480 H8064 O Lucifer,H1966 sonH1121 of the morning!H7837 how are you cut downH1438 to the ground,H776 which did weakenH2522 H5921 the nations!H1471


H1966
- Original: הילל
- Transliteration: heylel
- Phonetic: hay-lale'
- Definition: Lucifer = light-bearer
   1. shining one, morning star, Lucifer
      a. of the king of Babylon and Satan (fig.)
   2. (TWOT) 'Helel' describing the king of Babylon
- Origin: from H1984 (in the sense of brightness)
- TWOT entry: 499a
- Part(s) of speech: Noun Masculine

- Strong's: From H1984 (in the sense of brightness); the morning star: - lucifer.
Total KJV Occurrences: 1
• Lucifer, 1
Isa_14:12

Did you note the meaning of the word? Light Bearer - Shining One - Morning Star - Lucifer. These are all the same person, the one that eventually authored sin and fell.

'Lucifer, before his fall, was the morning star, the covering cherub, the brightest and highest of all creatures.' {1891 JHW, ATNM 58.2}

Job 38:7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

"Morning STARS" - Pleural. More that Christ and Satan were called morning stars.

APL,

I'm not accepting your concordance definitions. Nor do I accept Waggoner's words. I believe it is a mistranslation to call Lucifer the "morning star." First of all, the text in the NIV doesn't do this. It omits the word "Lucifer" altogether. So one might think it referred only to Christ. But then, this figure is said to be "fallen from heaven." Jesus came down from Heaven, but He never fell. This passage would be confusing and misleading to anyone who was unaware of the full truth. That is just as Satan would have it.

The KJV, on the other hand, preserves the clarity of the passage without confusing terms with that of Jesus' title.

I believe the translators of the KJV, while not perfect, enjoyed the blessing of God in their work. They lived in a time when their very lives were at stake over their work of maintaining the purity of God's Word and placing it in the hands of the people in their own language. The modern translators, by comparison, have set about to change things following their own opinions and doctrines.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Lucifer is and ENGLISH word. There is no confusion in the verse, unless you want to see one. As for the KJV, you are confused on the name JESUS meaning JOSHUA in Hebrews 4. I guess I'm not surprised if you want to be confused by Isaiah 14. As for the translators that put their lives on the line in the reformation, that would include Wycliffe, the "morning star" of the reformation. In the fourteenth century arose in England the "morning star of the Reformation." John Wycliffe was the herald of reform, not for England alone, but for all Christendom. The great protest against Rome which it was permitted him to utter was never to be silenced. That protest opened the struggle which was to result in the emancipation of individuals, of churches, and of nations. {GC 80.1} Are we to hold EGW responsible for confusing Wycliffe with Christ?????

Ellen White was quoting others in referring to Wycliffe. This is why she put the term in quotations marks, which you appear not to have noticed. She points out in doing so that Wycliffe's role in the reformation movement was one of prominence. She is not giving Wycliffe that title.

Of course, feel free to believe what you want.

I'm not the one confusing Joshua with Jesus. Again, that is a translation in Hebrews that is questionable. Of course, just like the tactics of those who support naturalistic evolution, errors can still be used to support other errors--and this works to persuade some people.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Green, still having trouble with Joshua, eh?

Rick, why remain shallow rather than going deep?

Actually green, you fell into the trap. You rant about calling other beings "morning star", and EGW does not. In fact, endorses it. The trap was to show how she handled it vs you. Thanks!

APL,

You are still choosing to be small minded about this. That is your right. However, for others' sake, let me clarify this point once and for all.

Ellen White never confuses the term "Morning Star," applied to Jesus, with anyone else except Jesus. She refers to the fact that some have called John Wycliffe the morning star of the reformation, indicating so by her use of quotation marks.

Examples follow.



Those statements above comprise the full set of statements regarding the "morning star of the Reformation." All of them put that term in quotation marks. Furthermore, the qualification "of the Reformation" sets this term to a specific context. Notice also the case. Not one of these has "morning star" in title case. On the other hand, Mrs. White would frequently put Jesus' title in title case. See below.



Clearly, Mrs. White uses "Morning Star" as a title for Jesus. Now, APL, if you really want to "trap" me, find Mrs. White using the title "Morning Star" for Lucifer. If you find it, I'll admit I've been "trapped."

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

The Bible has the answer green. 2 Peter 1:19, uses the name day star for Christ. It is the same word in Green that the Hebrew uses in Isaiah 14:12. This was Satan before his fall. Satan was a light bearer. He was perfect. He corrupted himself and is no longer. Job confirms there were more than one "morning star", in the KJV! Who is being narrow minded?

Who? Hmmm. Who has narrowed down the scriptures to one version only!

I'll do more than that, kland, where truth is involved. I'll narrow down the Sabbath to one day of the week only. I'll narrow down the Christ to one person only, and reject all others who claim to be Christ. I'll narrow down the truth wherever required to filter out known error.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Well there are others based on the true text which you can check out..

Tyndale New Testament 1526-1530 - http://faithofgod.org/EnglishC/
Miles Coverdale's Bible 1535 - http://www.eskimo.com/~lhowell/bcp1662/psalter/
http://www.bible-researcher.com/prayerbook1.html
Matthew's Bible 1537 - http://kyowva.com/bbacks/bibletra.htm
The Great Bible 1539 - http://kyowva.com/bbacks/bibletra.htm
Geneva Bible 1557-1560 - http://bible.crosswalk.com/Commenta...nevaStudyBible/
http://logosresourcepages.org/idx_geneva.htm
http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=ge+1&t=gen
The Bishops' Bible 1568 - http://www.sbible.boom.ru/bishop.htm
http://www.studylight.org/desk/?l=e...=Perform+Search
Webster Bible 1833 - http://www.awmach.org/BWB/dochome.htm
Darby Bible 1884,1890 - http://bible.christiansunite.com/dbyindex.shtml
Young's Literal Translation 1862-1898 - http://www.bible.org/public/youngslt/youngslt.htm
The 21st Century King James Version 1994 - http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/...guage=engli sh

Now in 395 AD, Jerome was accused by Pammachius of misrepresenting his thoughts through bad translation. In his response (known as Letter LVII: To Pammachius on the Best Method of Translating), Jerome stated, "As, however the letter itself shews that no changes have been made in the sense, that nothing has been added, and that no doctrine has been foisted into it, 'obviously their object is understanding to understand nothing;' and while they desire to arraign another's want of skill, they betray their own."

Jerome was a careful translator, and his words show the care he had in what he did. It can be used when we go to see the versions out there, that no changes have been made in the sense, that nothing has been added, and that no doctrine has been foisted into it.

The question however remains -- what was Jerome's source material?
Did he use the greek manuscripts commissioned by Constantine, which were already "adulterated" but accepted by Rome? He gave the Roman church the Latin Vulgate, but what is this Vulgate based upon?

The Waldenses also had a Bible in the OLD Latin of the common people, but it was based on the Received Text (which was wide spread in Asia Minor, Northern Italy and southern France)

At first it seems Jerome was using the Septuagint but changed which has caused debate to this day. In 390 Jerome began translating the Hebrew Bible from the original Hebrew, Jerome began at Bethlehem the Latin translation of the Old Testament directly from the Hebrew (Hebraica veritas). He believed that the Council of Jamnia, or mainstream rabbinical Judaism, had rejected the Septuagint as valid Jewish scriptural texts because of what were ascertained as mistranslations along with its Hellenistic heretical elements. He completed this work by 405. Prior to Jerome's Vulgate, all Latin translations of the Old Testament were based on the Septuagint not the Hebrew. Jerome's decision to use a Hebrew text instead of the previous translated Septuagint went against the advice of most other Christians in Rome and Alexandria...

•A.D. 390-405 - Saint Jerome translates the Hebrew Bible into Latin and completes the Latin Vulgate manuscript. It includes the 39 Old Testament books, 27 New Testament books, and 14 Apocrypha books.

http://christianity.about.com/od/biblefactsandlists/a/History-Of-The-Bible.htm


Here is a good explanation which I think comes the closest to the facts..

"There are three stages of Jerome's work of Scripture Translation. The first is during his stay at Rome, a.d. 382-385, when he translated only from the Greek-the New Testament from the Greek mss., and the Book of Psalms from the LXX. The second is the period immediately after his settlement at Bethlehem, when he translated still from the LXX., but marked with obeli and asterisks the passages in which that version differed from the Hebrew: the third from a.d. 390-404, in which he translated directly from the Hebrew."

http://www.biblestudytools.com/history/e...nd-chaldee.html

Jerome was devotedly committed to the textual criticism of Origen



Henry Swete in his Introduction to Greek documents considerable history of the Bible and of the work of Origen in producing a huge Bible called the hexapla which would have a huge influence on the scriptures that were accepted by the Papacy.

It is difficult to conceive of a codex or series of codices so gigantic as the Hexapla...it would have exhibited at
each opening at least six columns. It would have contained several thousand leaves. It's size discouraging much full document copying. The originals, however,
were long preserved at Caesarea in Palestine, where they were
deposited, perhaps by Origen himself, in the library of Pamphilus.

There they were studied by Jerome and The Hexaplaric text receives
his unhesitating support.

The Hexapla as a whole was perhaps too vast to be copied, and copies even of particular books were rarely attempted; yet there was nothing to forbid the separate publication of the fifth column, which contained the revised Septuagint. This idea presented itself to Pamphilus and Eusebius, and the result was the circulation of the Hexaplaric LXX in Palestine during the fourth century.

Quoting from Svete's book:


Now it's true Jerome also conferred with the Rabbis and this gave him a greater understanding of the Hebrew. Thus the Old Testament has less of Origen's influence than the New Testament, as Jerome eventually turned to the Hebrew text.

To me it appears Jerome recognized the problems with the text and changes and tried to go to the original Hebrew but by then had fallen out of favor with Rome by the powers that be for exposing their corruption.

Let me see if can post so more of the changes.