Bible Doctrines affected by Modern Versions

Posted By: Rick H

Bible Doctrines affected by Modern Versions - 11/04/19 05:00 PM

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 which states with Matthew:

MATTHEW

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.

Matthew 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.)

Matthew 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).

Matthew 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.

Matthew 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.

Matthew 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.

Matthew 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.

Matthew 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.

Matthew 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.

Matthew 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.

Matthew 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."

Matthew 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.

Matthew 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.

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

Matthew 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.

Matthew 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.

Matthew 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.

Matthew 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.

Matthew 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.

Matthew 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.

Matthew 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.

Matthew 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.

Matthew 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.

Matthew 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...
Posted By: Rick H

Re: Bible Doctrines affected by Modern Versions - 04/24/21 10:41 PM

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......?
Posted By: Rick H

Re: Bible Doctrines affected by Modern Versions - 04/24/21 10:42 PM

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 .
Posted By: Rick H

Re: Bible Doctrines affected by Modern Versions - 04/24/21 10:44 PM

And one Adventist know by heart, 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.'

Clearly it changes the meaning to say nothing of the intent of what the writer was putting down.
Posted By: Rick H

Re: Bible Doctrines affected by Modern Versions - 04/24/21 10:48 PM

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 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.
Posted By: kland

Re: Bible Doctrines affected by Modern Versions - 04/30/21 11:03 PM

Originally Posted by Rick H
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......?

I agree, it does appear on the surface to be different.

So what is your standard by how do you determine which one is correct?
Posted By: Rick H

Re: Bible Doctrines affected by Modern Versions - 05/01/21 12:55 PM

Originally Posted by kland
Originally Posted by Rick H
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......?

I agree, it does appear on the surface to be different.

So what is your standard by how do you determine which one is correct?


Well there is one thing that shows the corrupted Alexandrian versions. Take a look and you will find it is missing verses, look up this one...
Acts 8:37 King James Version (KJV)
37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

This basically shows it is based on Hort and Westcott changes from the Alexandrian Codices which is known as the Minority Text for good reason. Check out this study... https://www.angelfire.com/la2/prophet1/mintext1.html
Posted By: kland

Re: Bible Doctrines affected by Modern Versions - 05/05/21 03:00 PM

Again, should those verses be included in the Bible or not?

What is your standard by how do you determine which is correct?
Posted By: Matthew 10vs8

Re: Bible Doctrines affected by Modern Versions - 06/15/21 06:59 AM

Originally Posted by Rick H
And one Adventist know by heart, 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.'

Clearly it changes the meaning to say nothing of the intent of what the writer was putting down.
Absolutely are modern English 'versions' which claim to be Bibles affecting, even altering correct and true doctrine, to false doctrines/practices.

A primary example is the corrupt NKJV in Hebrews 9:12 where it makes a very serious change, without notification (parenthesis or italics) and being not represented by a single koine Greek mss. That counterfeit 'book' (which contains some Bible) attacks the Remnant (Seventh-day Adventists) more than any other, and it is "subtil" (Genesis 3:1 KJB) in many places (demonstrable upon request).

You are correct, RickH, that the NIV reads differently in Revelation 22:14 than in the KJB, and because it does so, affects entry into the New Jerusalem.

God has preserved His words (Psalms 12:6-7; 1 Chronicles 16:15; Psalms 89:34, 105:8; Deuteronomy 8:3; Matthew 4:4, Luke 4:4; Matthew 5:18, 24:35; Mark 13:31; Luke 21:33; John 12:48) to this very present moment (now), and I have them in my hand by promise of God Himself, in the English of the KJB.

Revelation 22:14 reads as preserved by God in the KJB:

Rev 22:14? 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.

The questions come, "Again, should those verses be included in the Bible or not? What is your standard by how do you determine which is correct?"

In answer, "Yes, it should be included." "God already determined what is to be preserved (see references previously given). We do not decide. We may have evidence of God's preservation, but we do not use that evidence to decide what to preserve. It is not our prerogative to decide what is to be preserved, it belongs to God alone."

So, how do we know which 'reading' (KJB or NIV) or 'text' (GNT TR, MAJORITY, MASORETIC HEBREW, etc or that which originates with Alexandria and Rome, such as Vaticanus (B) and Sinaiticus (Aleph), Alexandrinus (A), etc) is the one God preserved?

Take a look at the structure of Revelation - https://archive.org/download/michae...mpared%2C%207%20Branch%20Candlestick.pdf

[1.] When compared in its own 'bones', 'bone with bone', line upon line'; the very foundational structure of the text, we see the pattern that emerges. Revelation 21-22 parallels with Revelation 1-5 (see previous link) in very language.

The phrase "Blessed are they that do his commandments" (Rev. 22:14), parallel "Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand." (Revelation 1:3), for "do his commandments" is the very same as saying "readeth, ... and hear ... and keep those things which are written therein (such as God's commandments, Revelation 1:2,9,10, being "the word" "of God" (Deuteronomy 4:2; Isaiah 1:10, etc), see that comparison here - https://www.maritime-sda-online.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=194127#Post194127 )

[2] We know that John, being inspired of the Holy Ghost, was citing many OT scriptures in the Revelation. John, in Revelation 22:14, was quoting from the OT:

Such as Ezekiel 44:16, all the way through unto Ezekiel 47:12.

Ezekiel 44:16 They shall enter into my sanctuary, and they shall come near to my table, to minister unto me, and they shall keep my charge.

Ezekiel 47:12? And by the river upon the bank thereof, on this side and on that side, shall grow all trees for meat, whose leaf shall not fade, neither shall the fruit thereof be consumed: it shall bring forth new fruit according to his months, because their waters they issued out of the sanctuary: and the fruit thereof shall be for meat, and the leaf thereof for medicine.?

See also Psalms 118:19-20:

Psalms 118:19? Open to me the gates of righteousness: I will go into them, and I will praise the LORD:?

Psa 118:20? This gate of the LORD, into which the righteous shall enter.?

We know that "righteousness" is God's commandments (Psalms 119:172).

See also Isaiah 26:2:

Isaiah 26:2? Open ye the gates, that the righteous nation which keepeth the truth may enter in.

We know that "truth" is God's commandments (Psalms 119:142,151).

We also know that the end times deals with keeping God's commandments, as per Revelation 12:17, 14:6-12, 15:2, etc.

[3] The MSS (manuscripts, papyri, codice, lectionaries, so called 'ecf') themselves:

Revelation 22:14 as read in the GNT TR (Greek New Testament, Textus Receptus) or KJB (King James Bible) is as follows:

"046,
Cursives: MAJORITY - Andreas and 046 mss
Old Latin: gig
Syriac: philoxonean, harclean
Coptic: bohairic
Armenian"

The phrase "wash their robes" is found in:

"Aleph (Sinaiticus), A (Alexandrinus)
pc
ar, c, dem, div, haf
Vulgate (Jerome's Latin)
sa,
Arm-usc, mg, Ethiopic"

Source, A Closer Look: Early Manuscripts & The AV, by Jack Moorman, page 153 (I have on my desk, as I type)

Thus it is literally thousands (KJB) to a few emended and suspect texts (NIV, RV). Even Jerome admitted to altering the Old Latin. Aleph is likely a forgery of Constantine Simonides for the Russian Tzar, see the great research by David W Daniels and Chris Pinto, among others.

In the so called' "ECF" (early church fathers) we find the reading according to the GNT TR and KJB:

"TERTULLIAN, On Modesty (I 4:96)
CYPRIAN, Treatises (I, 5:525)"

The phrase "wash their robes" is not found in the "ecf". However, there is a phrase which is close:

"ATHANASIUS, Against Arians (III, 4:444) "Blessed are they who make broad their robes"

Source, Early Church Fathers And The Authorized Version, by Jack Moorman, page 61 (I have on my desk, as I type)

See also Will Kinney's website, Brand Plucked on Revelation 22:14 KJB -

"It is also so quoted by several church Fathers, including Tertullian 220, Cryprian 258, Tyconius 380 A.D., Andrew, Beatus and Arethas. All this information is found in his own UBS Greek New Testament critical text First edition!"

"It is the text of the Reformation Bibles in all languages.

This includes Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549, the Bishop's Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587 - " Blessed are they, that doe his commandments", The Beza New Testament 1599 and the 1611 King James Holy Bible.

After 1611 it continued to be the reading in The Bill Bible 1671, Whiston's Primitive N.T. 1745, John Wesley's 1755 translation, Worsley Version 1770, The Clarke N.T. 1795, the Newcome N.T. 1796, The Thompson Bible 1808, The Improved N.T. 1809, The Revised Translation 1815, The Thompson N.T. 1816, The Wakefield N.T. 1820, The Kneeland N.T. 1823, The Dickinson N.T. 1833, Webster's 1833 version, Living Oracles 1835, The New Covenant N.T. 1836, The Pickering N.T. 1840, The Hammond N.T. 1845, The Hussey N.T. 1845, The Morgan N.T. 1848, the Etheridge Translation 1849 and Murdock's Translation of the Syriac 1851, The Commonly Received Version 1851, The Boothroyd Bible 1853, The Sawyer N.T. 1858, The Revised New Testament 1862, The Emphatic Diaglott Bible 1865, The Smith Bible 1876, The Dillard N.T. 1885, and the Aramaic Bible in Plain English - "Blessings to those who ARE DOING his Commandments."

It is also the reading of Youngs literal 1898, the NKJV 1982, the KJV 21st Century Version 1994, Green's Modern KJV 2000, The Word of Yah Bible 1993, the Worldwide English New Testament 1998, The Koster Scriptures 1998, the Interlinear Greek New Testament 1997 (Larry Pierce), the Lawrie Translation of 1998, Last Days Bible 1999, God's First Truth 1999, The Tomson N.T. 2002, Apostolic Bible Polyglot Greek 2003, the Heritage Bible of 2003, Green's Literal 2005, Robinson-Pierpoint Byzantine Greek New Testament, the Third Millennium Bible 1998, A Conservative Version 2005, Complete Apostles Bible 2005, The Pickering N.T. 2005, The Revised Geneva Bible 2005, Bond Slave Version 2009, the English Majority Text Version of 2009 by Paul Esposito, the Holy Scriptures Jubilee Bible of 2010, the Online Linear of 2009 by Andre de Mol, Holy Scriptures VW Edition 2010, The Far Above All Translation 2011, the Natural Israelite Bible of 2012 - "Blessed are those who do His commandments.", Hebraic Roots Bible 2012, World English Bible 2012, The English Majority Text N.T. 2013, The Aramaic Plain English Bible 2013, the Hebrew Names Version 2014, The Modern Literal N.T. 2014 and The Holy Bible, Modern English Version 2014 - "Blessed are those who DO HIS COMMANDMENTS, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter through the gates into the city." and the New Matthew Bible 2016. "

"Among foreign language Bibles "Blessed are they that DO his commandments" is the reading found in Luther's German Bible of 1545 - "Selig sind, die seine Gebote halten" ..." - [/url]

Additionally, others have...lesia.org/truth/manuscript_evidence.html


Others still have noted that the differing readings may be due to a mistake in the koine Greek phrase of "POIOUNTESTASENTOLASAUTOU" (do his commandments), is similar to "PLUNONTESTASSTOLASAUTON" (rinse their robes) :

"Revelation 22:14:
TEXT: "?Blessed [are] those who rinse their robes"
EVIDENCE: S A 1006 2053 most lat vg cop(south)
TRANSLATIONS: ASV RSV NASV NIV NEB TEV
RANK: B

NOTES: "?Blessed [are] those who do his commandments"
EVIDENCE: 046 1 94 1611 1854 Maj one lat syr(ph,h) cop(north)
TRANSLATIONS: KJV RSVn

COMMENTS: The two readings are pronounced similarly in Greek. It is not hard to see how PLUNONTESTASSTOLASAUTON might have changed into POIOUNTESTASENTOLASAUTOU (that is, how "rinse their robes" changed into "do his commandments"), especially since "do his commandments" would be much more expected than "rinse their robes." Elsewhere John writes "keep the commandments" (Revelation 12:17; 14:12)." - http://web.ovu.edu/terry/tc/lay31rev.htm

Though they think it went from 'rinse their robes' to "do his commandments", the comparison is a good one, though they erred in the origin (or permutation) of one to the other. Even so, they clearly state "... "do his commandments" would be much more expected ..."

[4.] We can know from scripture that "Egypt" and "Babylon", even "Rome" (especially 'papal' Rome) are negatively spoken of By God in the word. God speaks highly of "Antioch", where persons where first called Christians (Acts 11:26), which is where the GNT TR and MAJORITY, etc come from. God had told His people a long time ago not to go down into Egypt for horses, weapons, etc (Isaiah 30:2; Jeremiah 42:19, etc). God warned His people to flee from Babylon (Revelation 18:1-5), and to give to Caesar (Rome) what belonged to him (Matthew 22:21; Mark 12:17; Luke 20:25). Why would we accept mss that come from those areas? God warned of anti Christian things, false messengers, coming out of a "desert" (Egypt, Alexandria) and "secret chambers" (like the Vatican vaults in Rome, see Matthew 24:26).

[5.] Sister White, the messenger of the Lord and more than a prophet cites the Revelation 22:14 of the King James Bible many, many times: See - https://text.egwwritings.org/search...do+his+commandments%22&Search=Search Sister White does not once quote a version that reads like the NIV (or RV), "wash their robes" for Revelation 22:14. When she does use the phrase "wash their robes" it refers to Revelation 7:14 KJB text, and not Revelation 22:14 in the contexts.

[6] The men of the King James translation committee were some of the most godly men in their age, and were the greatest of linguists and scholars. An indepth consideration may be begun here (by brother Sam Gipp) - https://ia803206.us.archive.org/19/items/24-hour-syllabus/24%20Hour%20SYLLABUS.pdf

[7] The KJB is the book which even bears the name of Christ's counterpart (James or "Jacob", ie Israel) and is authorized by a godly King:

Ecc_8:4? Where the word of a king is, there is power: and who may say unto him, What doest thou?

Much more may be said about King James I of England (VI of Scotland) and his godly ways and character.

[8] Much more can be said about the very character of the KJB itself, in how many revivals it has wrought, and victories won for the Kingdom of God, and how many hammers it (the anvil) has worn out, and how many of tried to silence this great Lion of Heaven.
Posted By: Matthew 10vs8

Re: Bible Doctrines affected by Modern Versions - 06/16/21 06:56 AM

Originally Posted by Rick H
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...

This is just Matthew, these changes and deletions is done all the way to Revelation...
Yes, indeed, let's consider:

Let's consider the so-called "translation" of the NWT (JW) (but reads like the NIV and others), and show that it is based upon Vaticanus (B) and Sinaiticus (aleph) even further:

The King James Bible, faithful as ever reads:

Mar 9:29 And he said unto them, This kind can come forth by nothing, but by prayer and fasting.

In the NWT, in Mark 9:29, it reads:

Mark 9:29 NWT - 29 He said to them: ?This kind can come out only by prayer.?

The side notation on the NWT says [red, bold and underline added by myself]:

"... by prayer: Some manuscripts add ?and fasting.? But the earliest and most reliable manuscripts do not include ?and fasting.? These words were evidently added by copyists who advocated fasting and practiced it. They repeatedly included references to fasting where these were not found in earlier copies.?See study note on Mt 17:21. ..."

That is a total lie. Notice:

It is because of Codex Sinaiticus (aleph) (desert) and Codex Vaticanus (B) (secret vaults) (Matthew 24:26) and 0274 (pc, no cursives are cited by the N/A, or UBS), k. These (alone) leave off ?and fasting?.

Yet, consider that vast evidence for ?and fasting?:

?? P45
Aleph-2
C, D, E, F, G, H, K, L, M, N, S, U, V, W, X, Y
Gamma, Delta, Theta, Pi, Sigma, Phi, Psi, Omega
Cursives: MAJORITY fam 1,13
Old Latin: a, aur, b, d, f, f2, i, l, q, r1, Vulgate
Syriac: Pes.hitta, (sin, old Syriac), Harclean, Palestinian
Coptic: Sahidic, Bohairic
Gothic: Armenian, Ethiopic
Also extant in 047?, 055, 0211, 0233?, 0257? ?? - A Closer Look: Early Manuscripts & The AV, by Jack Moorman, page 79

It is not as the NWT notation which says "Some manuscripts", but in all practicability, all of them. It is not as the NWT notation says, "the earliest and most reliable manuscripts", but only primarily refers to Vaticanus and Sinaiticus the two most emended codices/texts on earth.

It is even found in the so called ECF:

Thomas Aquinas, citing Chrysostom, and Theophylact, and Bede, and Pseudo-Jerome, in Catena Aurea, states on Mark 9:29:

"? Chrys.: They feared that perchance they had lost the grace conferred upon them; for they had already received power over unclean spirits.

It goes on: ?And He said unto them, This kind can come forth by nothing but by prayer and fasting.? ?" - https://ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/catena2/catena2.iii.ix.html 2

?? Theophylact: That is, the whole class of lunatics, or simply, of all persons possessed with devils. Both the man to be cured, and he who cures him, should fast; for a real prayer is offered up, when fasting is joined with prayer, when he who prays is sober and not heavy with food. ?? - https://ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/catena2/catena2.iii.ix.html 2

?? Bede: Further, 179 our Lord, while teaching the Apostles how the worst devil is to be expelled, gives all of us rules for our life; that is, He would have us know that all the more grievous attacks of evil spirits or of men are to be overcome by fastings and prayers; and again, that the anger of the Lord, when it is kindled for vengeance on our crimes, can be appeased by this remedy alone. ?? - https://ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/catena2/catena2.iii.ix.html 2

?? Pseudo-Jerome: Or else, the folly which is connected with the softness of the flesh, is healed by fasting; anger and laziness are healed by prayer. Each would has its own medicine, which must be applied to it; that which is used for the heel will not cure the eye; by fasting, the passions of the body, by prayer, the plagues of the soul, are healed. ?? - https://ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/catena2/catena2.iii.ix.html 2​

Even the Douay Rheims has (which counters their Jerome's corrupted Vulgate):

Mar 9:29 (9:28) And he said to them: This kind can go out by nothing, but by prayer and fasting.

Consider more from Brand Plucked, by brother Will Kinney:

"... The words "and fasting" again are in the Majority texts, as well as Sinaiticus correction, C, D, and P45 which predates them all. The words are also found in the Old Latin, Syriac, Coptic, and the Douay version.

Yet because Vaticanus omits them, the NASB, NIV, ESV also omit "with fasting". But now the new Holman Christian Standard has put "with fasting" back in the text but in brackets, while the ISV again includes "with fasting" and no brackets. ..." - https://brandplucked.webs.com/markmvmixup.htm

Additional:

"... Mark 9:29:
TEXT: "This kind can come out by nothing except by prayer."
EVIDENCE: S* B one lat
TRANSLATIONS: ASV RSV NASV NIV NEB TEV
RANK: A

NOTES: "This kind can come out by nothing except by prayer and fasting."
EVIDENCE: p45vid Sb A C D K L W X Delta Theta Pi Psi f1 f13 28 33 565 700 892 1010 1241 Byz Lect most lat vg syr(h) syr(s,p,pal) ("fasting and prayer") cop
TRANSLATIONS: KJV ASVn RSVn NASVn NIVn NEBn ..." - http://web.ovu.edu/terry/tc/lay05mrk.htm

Moreover:

"... Mark 9:29

"and fasting" is omitted by the RV, Ne, NIV, NKJV marg., RSV, GN, LB, NASV, NSRB marg., NEB, NWT, 313. AMP italicises the words.

Hills (3) p 138, states that Aleph, B and the other Alexandrian manuscripts omit the words, probably owing to the influence of Alexandrian Gnostics. Berry's Greek text, reflecting the majority of manuscripts, retains the words. ..." - http://ecclesia.org/truth/manuscript_evidence.html

Mark's account parallels that of Matthew's:

Mat_17:21? Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting.

Even John the Baptist, and his disciples would fast and pray:

Luk_5:33? And they said unto him, Why do the disciples of John fast often, and make prayers, and likewise the disciples of the Pharisees; but thine eat and drink?

Further evidence in the NT includes "fasting" with "prayer":

Mat_6:16? Moreover when ye fast, be not, as the hypocrites, of a sad countenance: for they disfigure their faces, that they may appear unto men to fast. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

Mat 6:17? But thou, when thou fastest, anoint thine head, and wash thy face;?

Mat_9:15? And Jesus said unto them, Can the children of the bridechamber mourn, as long as the bridegroom is with them? but the days will come, when the bridegroom shall be taken from them, and then shall they fast.

Mar_2:20? But the days will come, when the bridegroom shall be taken away from them, and then shall they fast in those days.

Luk_5:35? But the days will come, when the bridegroom shall be taken away from them, and then shall they fast in those days.

Act_10:30? And Cornelius said, Four days ago I was fasting until this hour; and at the ninth hour I prayed in my house, and, behold, a man stood before me in bright clothing,

Act_14:23? And when they had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed.

1Co_7:5? Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.

The OT, speaks of the true "fast" from sin:

Joe_1:14? Sanctify ye a fast, call a solemn assembly, gather the elders and all the inhabitants of the land into the house of the LORD your God, and cry unto the LORD,

Isa 58:1? Cry aloud, spare not, lift up thy voice like a trumpet, and shew my people their transgression, and the house of Jacob their sins.?
Isa 58:2? Yet they seek me daily, and delight to know my ways, as a nation that did righteousness, and forsook not the ordinance of their God: they ask of me the ordinances of justice; they take delight in approaching to God.?
Isa 58:3? Wherefore have we fasted, say they, and thou seest not? wherefore have we afflicted our soul, and thou takest no knowledge? Behold, in the day of your fast ye find pleasure, and exact all your labours.?
Isa 58:4? Behold, ye fast for strife and debate, and to smite with the fist of wickedness: ye shall not fast as ye do this day, to make your voice to be heard on high.?
Isa 58:5? Is it such a fast that I have chosen? a day for a man to afflict his soul? is it to bow down his head as a bulrush, and to spread sackcloth and ashes under him? wilt thou call this a fast, and an acceptable day to the LORD??
Isa 58:6? Is not this the fast that I have chosen? to loose the bands of wickedness, to undo the heavy burdens, and to let the oppressed go free, and that ye break every yoke??
Isa 58:7? Is it not to deal thy bread to the hungry, and that thou bring the poor that are cast out to thy house? when thou seest the naked, that thou cover him; and that thou hide not thyself from thine own flesh??
Isa 58:8? Then shall thy light break forth as the morning, and thine health shall spring forth speedily: and thy righteousness shall go before thee; the glory of the LORD shall be thy rereward.?
Isa 58:9? Then shalt thou call, and the LORD shall answer; thou shalt cry, and he shall say, Here I am. If thou take away from the midst of thee the yoke, the putting forth of the finger, and speaking vanity;?
Isa 58:10? And if thou draw out thy soul to the hungry, and satisfy the afflicted soul; then shall thy light rise in obscurity, and thy darkness be as the noonday:?
Isa 58:11? And the LORD shall guide thee continually, and satisfy thy soul in drought, and make fat thy bones: and thou shalt be like a watered garden, and like a spring of water, whose waters fail not.?
Isa 58:12? And they that shall be of thee shall build the old waste places: thou shalt raise up the foundations of many generations; and thou shalt be called, The repairer of the breach, The restorer of paths to dwell in.?
Isa 58:13? If thou turn away thy foot from the sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on my holy day; and call the sabbath a delight, the holy of the LORD, honourable; and shalt honour him, not doing thine own ways, nor finding thine own pleasure, nor speaking thine own words:?
Isa 58:14? Then shalt thou delight thyself in the LORD; and I will cause thee to ride upon the high places of the earth, and feed thee with the heritage of Jacob thy father: for the mouth of the LORD hath spoken it.?

The Day of Atonement (type and antitype) is a day of fasting (afflicting of soul):

Lev 16:29? And this shall be a statute for ever unto you: that in the seventh month, on the tenth day of the month, ye shall afflict your souls, and do no work at all, whether it be one of your own country, or a stranger that sojourneth among you:?
Lev 16:30? For on that day shall the priest make an atonement for you, to cleanse you, that ye may be clean from all your sins before the LORD.?
Lev 16:31? It shall be a sabbath of rest unto you, and ye shall afflict your souls, by a statute for ever.?

Lev 23:26? And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,?
Lev 23:27? Also on the tenth day of this seventh month there shall be a day of atonement: it shall be an holy convocation unto you; and ye shall afflict your souls, and offer an offering made by fire unto the LORD.?
Lev 23:28? And ye shall do no work in that same day: for it is a day of atonement, to make an atonement for you before the LORD your God.?
Lev 23:29? For whatsoever soul it be that shall not be afflicted in that same day, he shall be cut off from among his people.?
Lev 23:30? And whatsoever soul it be that doeth any work in that same day, the same soul will I destroy from among his people.?
Lev 23:31? Ye shall do no manner of work: it shall be a statute for ever throughout your generations in all your dwellings.?
Lev 23:32? It shall be unto you a sabbath of rest, and ye shall afflict your souls: in the ninth day of the month at even, from even unto even, shall ye celebrate your sabbath.

Sister White herself, (the prophet), when quoting the scripture, included "and fasting", which is in agreement with the law of God, His word.

https://text.egwwritings.org/search.php?lang=en&collection=2&section=all&QUERY=%22nothing%2C+but+by+prayer+and+fasting%22&Search=Search

It is always by "prayer" "and fasting".

The NWT, and the NIV, and those like them, are of the devil, removing "and fasting", so that they are not 'cast out' of the fallen churches, who 'eat' sumptuously and many 'dainties', and drink corrupt 'wine':

Rev 18:2? And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird.?
Posted By: kland

Re: Bible Doctrines affected by Modern Versions - 06/17/21 06:24 PM

Too wordy, didn't read it all.
I was looking for a concise answer. Maybe it isn't possible.

Quote
So, how do we know which 'reading' (KJB or NIV) or 'text' (GNT TR, MAJORITY, MASORETIC HEBREW, etc or that which originates with Alexandria and Rome, such as Vaticanus (B) and Sinaiticus (Aleph), Alexandrinus (A), etc) is the one God preserved?
Yes, the answer to that question I was looking for.

Quote
[6] The men of the King James translation committee were some of the most godly men in their age, and were the greatest of linguists and scholars. An indepth consideration may be begun here (by brother Sam Gipp) - https://ia803206.us.archive.org/19/items/24-hour-syllabus/24%20Hour%20SYLLABUS.pdf

Does this mean the men of the other version's translation committees were NOT some of the most godly men in their age, and were NOT the greatest of linguists and scholars?
Who determines which men were the most godly and greatest linguists and scholoars?

My question has not been answered. ...Unless implied that the KJV is the best because one "feels" it is. I need a concise answer and reason or I'll be of the same opinion still.
Posted By: Matthew 10vs8

Re: Bible Doctrines affected by Modern Versions - 06/17/21 09:35 PM

Originally Posted by kland
Too wordy, didn't read it all.
Yes, the indolence of this age is paramount of its character, being that the hour of power of darkness approaches its peak and the Son of man is betrayed into the hands of men. Many love to sleep, and fold their hands, putting them into their bosoms, so as not to bring them to their mouth again. The attention span of mankind is reduced to ashes by the blitzkrieg and third Reich of the devil in his onslaught of instant gratification, and food is swallowed without even chewing each morsel over and over and tasting its sweet particle flavours. I must wonder if the 'advice given' to God about Psalms 119; the book of Isaiah and Jeremiah are of the same character ("TL;DR"; "Wall-O-Text"; "CnP", &c), or to their 'pastors' about the length of the time in the pulpit. I know that I have personally received a direct letter, from a 'pastor' in whose church I gave a thorough study, about that very thing. The abuse of sister White's material to me on the subject in that letter was astounding and quite disheartening (even to think that that man is still sitting over a flock, it is a battle to hold back the flood of tears if thought upon too deeply. The congregation must surely be dead from so great a lack of fresh air, clean food and pure water). I was never invited back needless to say.

Originally Posted by kland
I was looking for a concise answer.
Each point was concise and exactly to the point being addressed. It is just that there are multiple points, with the preface and point 1 being the chief, foundational and over all most important among them (re-quoted at the end of this reply).

Originally Posted by kland
Maybe it isn't possible.
In some minds, all things are impossible, even with God. Yet, not in my mind.

Quote
[Matthew ten Verseight] So, how do we know which 'reading' (KJB or NIV) or 'text' (GNT TR, MAJORITY, MASORETIC HEBREW, etc or that which originates with Alexandria and Rome, such as Vaticanus (B) and Sinaiticus (Aleph), Alexandrinus (A), etc) is the one God preserved?

[kland] Yes, the answer to that question I was looking for.
It was given, in crystal clear and unmistakable characters and tones. To have missed so bright and shining a reply therein means that ones eyes and ears are hard of seeing, and dull of hearing and that which is seen and heard is only dimly comprehended and not understood for what it is, like witnessing men as trees walking, or as adults speaking to an infant, for movement and shape is seen, but known only as shadowy upon the eye, and speech is heard, but only experienced as a string of musical sounds that light upon the ear. Yet, those are merely symptoms of this age, which manifest through a stony heart. There is a cure for this. It requires the exchange of minds.

Quote
[Matthew ten Verseight] [6] The men of the King James translation committee were some of the most godly men in their age, and were the greatest of linguists and scholars. An indepth consideration may be begun here (by brother Sam Gipp) - https://ia803206.us.archive.org/19/items/24-hour-syllabus/24%20Hour%20SYLLABUS.pdf

[kland] Does this mean the men of the other version's translation committees were NOT some of the most godly men in their age, and were NOT the greatest of linguists and scholars?

Who determines which men were the most godly and greatest linguists and scholoars?
Some people I have noticed have questions to obtain answers, that they may learn to shrink their own world of ignorance (not knowing), and they bless the Light. Others ask questions simply to ask more questions, being the ever consummate Thomas, and yet all the while they do not like questions asked of them, for it would reveal their true position of doubt and uncertainty.

The Bible always has the answer, for the Bible (KJB) is the final authority in all matters of faith and practice. Isaiah 8:20, and "I recommend to you, dear reader, the Word of God as the rule of your faith and practice" (EW, 78.1); "The Bible, and the Bible alone, is to be our creed, the sole bond of union; all who bow to this Holy Word will be in harmony." (1SM 416.2); "The word of God is sufficient to enlighten the most beclouded mind and may be understood by those who have any desire to understand it" (2T 454.4; 5T 663.2)

The translation committees of today are indeed of a differing character than from those days of the Reformation for they have been filling up with devils, and this is historically demonstrable. The Bible says:

2Ti_3:13? But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.

Mal 2:11? Judah hath dealt treacherously, and an abomination is committed in Israel and in Jerusalem; for Judah hath profaned the holiness of the LORD which he loved, and hath married the daughter of a strange god.?

Mal 2:12? The LORD will cut off the man that doeth this, the master and the scholar, out of the tabernacles of Jacob, and him that offereth an offering unto the LORD of hosts.?

Rev 18:2? And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird.?

There are Jesuits (such as, Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini, SJ, and is said of him in the Greek New Testament 3rd edition, "... who has been a member of the Committee for both the Second and Third Editions undertook a thorough review of the text of the First Edition by carefully considering not only a number of suggestions made by specialists in the hold of New Testament studies, but also numerous recommendations resulting from the experience of the members of the Committee as they worked with the text of the First Edition. ..." - http://www.pawcreek.org/niv-catholic/ ) now on those committees, and they have ecumenical ties to the AntiChristos (the Vicarvis Christi of Papal Rome). They even own the colleges and universities from which the other 'scholars' come from. The mind, thinking and head, of the great whore are everywhere entwined in such translations today, for it has long been performing the miracle of multiplying 'bread', counterfeiting the great work of Christ Jesus. The leopard of Greecia is in all world academics today. Prophecy has told us this, if nothing else.

The second question was answered in the preface along with point 1. The Bible (KJB, the inspired word of God preserved into the English language) is the final authority in all matters of faith and practice. So, what does the Bible say is the judge of such matters?

Isa 8:20? To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

Joh_12:48? He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.

Originally Posted by kland
My question has not been answered.
In truth, it has been answered in two ways, but those two ways conflict with one another and shall ever remain at war, until all rebellion is put down at the feet of Jesus Christ. One answer was given in my reply. The other answer already appeared in your heart before you asked the question, and by this is meant, you already had an answer of yourself, which disagrees with the answer in my reply. I do not mean anything harsh by this, but am pointing out where the result of your present came from. In other words, my answer did not "answer" (echo) what already existed within you.

Originally Posted by kland
...Unless implied that the KJV is the best because one "feels" it is.
There was no where implied, stated, believed or practiced in my reply that such a thing was ever true. It is denied directly to its face in the most explicit of terms. In other words, "God forbid!" Feeling and flesh have nothing to do with the faith that was expressed in the reply.

Originally Posted by kland
I need a concise answer and reason or I'll be of the same opinion still.
The answer, being truth, cannot change, and shall remain the same, even as Jesus Christ is the same, yesterday, today and forever, and changes not. There is the vast chasm that exists between ontological truth and ones opinion, and it cannot be crossed except through faith.

I shall provide once more, in charity, in long suffering and in the hopes of obtaining a sure ally in this long war that has been against the word of God since the beginning, the answer once more:

"God has preserved His words (Psalms 12:6-7; 1 Chronicles 16:15; Psalms 89:34, 105:8; Deuteronomy 8:3; Matthew 4:4, Luke 4:4; Matthew 5:18, 24:35; Mark 13:31; Luke 21:33; John 12:48) to this very present moment (now), and I have them in my hand by promise of God Himself, in the English of the KJB. ...

... "God already determined what is to be preserved (see references previously given). We do not decide. We may have evidence of God's preservation, but we do not use that evidence to decide what to preserve. It is not our prerogative to decide what is to be preserved, it belongs to God alone." ...

When compared in its own 'bones', 'bone with bone', line upon line'; the very foundational structure of the text, we see the pattern that emerges. ..."

In short, "Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them." (Matthew 7:20)

Jesus is much better a condensing things than I am. smile
Posted By: Matthew 10vs8

Re: Bible Doctrines affected by Modern Versions - 06/20/21 02:13 AM

Let's now consider the NWT and/or NIV, etc. in Matthew 17:21, and show that it too follows Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, and it down plays what is actually noted in their own texts, the parallel of Mark 9:29:

Matthew 17:21 NWT - 21 ??

NWT Notation on Matthew 17:21 - "... So
me ancient manuscripts here read: ?However, this kind does not come out except by prayer and fasting.? (See study note on Mr 9:29.) But these words do not appear in the earliest and most reliable manuscripts and are evidently not part of the inspired Scriptures.?See App. A3. ..." - https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/study-bible/books/matthew/17/#v40017021

Or see Matthew 17:21 NIV:

"... [21] [a]

[a] Matthew 17:21 Some manuscripts include here words similar to Mark 9:29.
..." - https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+17%3A21&version=NIV

Again, that which is stated is a lie, not only referring to Mark 9:29, which is already shown to be in practically all mss, the NWT notation again false says, "these words do not appear in the earliest and most reliable manuscripts, and are evidently not part of the inspired Scriptures." and "Bible Gateway", says, "Some manuscripts include ..."

The words do not occur in the following corrupted texts:

Aleph* (Sinaiticus), B (Vaticanus), Theta; pc, e, ff1, sin, cur, pal, sa, bo-pt, Eth-rom,ms

Sinaiticus has been edited by a scribe and placed the text back in the text, so it is in Sinaiticus by later scribe.

So when the WTS/JW notation says, "Some ancient manuscripts here read ...", they are attempting to negate the vast extant literature which has the text in it. And when the notation at Bible Gateway says, "Some", they hide the fact that it is actually in nearly all available or extant mss:

"... Aleph-2
C, D, E, F, G, H, K, L, M, O, S, U, V, W, X, Y
Gamma, Delta, Pi, Sigma, Phi, Omega
Cursives: MAJORITY, fam 1,13
Old Latin: (a), aur, (b), (c), d, f, ff2, g1, l, (n), q, r1,2, Vulgate
Syriac: (Pes.hitta), (Harclean)
Coptic: Bohairic-pt, mae
Armenian: Ethiopic-ppl

Also extant in 047, 055, 0211 ..." - A Closer Look: Early Manuscripts & The A.V.; by Jack Moorman, page 68

Additionally:

"... PSEUDO-CLEMENT OF ROME, concerning Virginity (I 8:59)

ORIGEN, Matthew (I 10:479)

AMBROSE, Letters (III 10:459) ..." - Early Church Fathers And The Authorized Version, by Jack Moorman, page 40

Even Thomas Aquinas cites these on Matthew 17:21:

"... Raban.: But while He teaches the Apostles how the daemon ought to be cast out, He instructs all in615 regulation of life; that we may all know that all the heavier afflictions, whether of unclean spirits, or temptations of men, may be removed by fasts and prayers; and that the wrath also of the Lord may be appeased by this remedy alone; whence he adds, ?Howbeit this kind is not cast out but by prayer and fasting.?

Chrys.: And this He says not of lunatics in particular, but of the whole class of daemons. For fast endues with great wisdom, makes a man as an Angel from heaven, and beats down the unseen powers of evil. But there is need of prayer as even still more important. And who prays as he ought, and fasts, had need of little more, and so is not covetous, but ready to almsgiving. For he who fasts, is light and active, and prays wakefully, and quenches his evil lusts, makes God propitious, and humbles his proud stomach. And he who prays with his fasting, has two wings, lighter than the winds themselves. For he is not heavy and wandering in his prayers, (as is the case with many,) but his zeal is as the warmth of fire, and his constancy as the firmness of the earth. Such an one is most able to contend with daemons, for there is nothing more powerful than a man who prays properly.

But if your health be too weak for strict fast, yet is it not for prayer, and if you cannot fast, you can abstain from indulgences. And this is not a little, and not very different from fast.

Origen: If then we shall ever be required to be employed in the healing of those who are suffering any thing of this sort, we shall not adjure them, nor ask them questions, nor even speak, as though the unclean spirit could hear us, but by our fasting and our prayers drive away the evil spirits.

Gloss. ord.: Or; This class of daemons, that is the variety of carnal pleasures, is not overcome unless the spirit be strengthened by prayer, and the flesh enfeebled by fast.

Remig.: Or, fasting is here understood generally as abstinence not from food only, but from all carnal allurements, and sinful passions. In like manner prayer is to be understood in general as consisting in pious and good acts, concerning which the Apostle speaks, ?Pray without ceasing.? [1 Thess. 5:17] ..." - St. Thomas Aquinas: Catena Aurea - Gospel of Matthew - Christian Classics Ethereal Library - https://ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/catena1/catena1.ii.xvii.html

Further information on this text may be found here -

"... The textual evidence for the inclusion of this verse is massive and universal. It is found in the Majority of all Greek manuscripts including Sinaiticus correction, C, D, E, F, G, H, K, L, M, O, S, U, V, W, X, Y, Gamma, Delta, Pi, Sigma, Phi and Omega among the uncial or capital lettered manuscripts, and is in the Diatessaron, a compilation of the 4 gospels, which dates to around 160-175 A.D.

It is included in the Old Latin copies of a, aur, b, c, d, f, ff2, g1, l, n, q, r1. It is in the Latin Vulgate, the Syriac Peshitta, Harclean, some Coptic Boharic, the Armenian, some Ethiopic, the Georgian and the Slavonic ancient versions. It is quoted by such early church writers as Origen, Asterius, Hilary, Basil, Ambrose, Chrysostom, Jerome and Augustine.

It is omitted mainly by the Vaticanus manuscript and Theta.

Sinaiticus original omitted the verse, but then another scribe corrected Sinaiticus and put it back in the text. ..." https://brandplucked.webs.com/matthew1721.htm

See also:

"... Burgon (14) p 91, 206 states that every extant uncial except Aleph and B and every extant cursive except one contain the verse. Of the versions, the Old Latin, Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Georgian, Ethiopic and Slavonic attest to the verse, with only the Curetonian Syriac and Sahidic omitting it. He cites additional ancient authorities including: 2nd Century: Tertullian; 3rd Century: Origen; 4th Century: Ambrose, Athanasius, Augustine, Basil, Chrysostom, Hilary, Juvencus; 8th Century: Clement of Syria, John Damascene.

Burgon also cites the Syriac version of the Canons of Eusebius and the readings of the entire Eastern Church on the l0th Sunday after Pentecost from the earliest period, in favour of the verse. Berry's Greek text supports this passage. ..." - http://ecclesia.org/truth/manuscript_evidence.html

Again, sister White already cites this verse, as found in the KJB on several occasions.

See also the notations already given on Mark 9:29 here - https://www.maritime-sda-online.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=194161#Post194161
Posted By: Matthew 10vs8

Re: Bible Doctrines affected by Modern Versions - 06/20/21 11:06 PM

Mat 18:11?KJB For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.?

Altering this, or removing it from this location, would deny that the Father sent the Son to save this one lost world, and it would also break up the connection about all of the other unfallen worlds above, and the unfallen beings on them, that exist to this day. It would also attempt to teach that the Pharisees and/or this world isn't really 'lost' or in need of salvation.

Let's now consider the NWT & NIV, etc. of Matthew 18:11, and show that it too follows Vaticanus and Sinaiticus:

Matthew 18:11 NWT - 11 ??

NWT Notation on Matthew 18:11 - "Matthew 18:11 Some manuscripts here include the words: ?For the Son of man came to save what was lost,? but these words do not appear in the earliest and most reliable manuscripts. A similar statement is part of the inspired text at Lu 19:10. Some are of the opinion that an early copyist borrowed the expression from Luke?s account.?See App. A3." - https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/study-bible/books/matthew/18/#v40018011

Again, that which is stated is a lie, not only referring to Luke 19:10 which does have the words, the NWT notation again false says, "... these words do not appear in the earliest and most reliable manuscripts ..."

NIV Notation of Matthew 18:11 says,

"Matthew 18:11 [a]

[a] Matthew 18:11 Some manuscripts include here the words of Luke 19:10." - https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2018:11&version=NIV

This is also a lie, since it says, "Some manuscripts" (see the evidence below) and it also boldly claims that Matthew 18:11 "include here the words of Luke 19:10" as if some copyists and/or plentitude of scribes just decided to 'slip' a portion of Luke 19:10 into Matthews account of the Gospel. Their evidence of this? Nuts.

The words do not occur in the following corrupted texts:

Aleph (Sinaiticus), B (Vaticanus), L*, Theta*; pc, fam 1,13, a, ff1, sin, pal, sa, bo-pt, mae

So when the WTS/JW and/or NIV, etc. notation says, "Some manuscripts here include the words ...", they are attempting to negate the vast extant literature which has the text in it:

"... D, E, F, G, H, I, K, L-c, M, N, S, U, V, W, X, Y
Theta-c, Sigma, Phi, Omega
Cursives: MAJORITY
Old Latin: a, aur, b, (c), d, f, ff2, g1, l, n, q, r1,2, Vulgate
Syriac: Pes.hitta, Curetonian, Harclean
Coptic: Bohairic-pt
Armenian, Ethiopic

Also extant in 0?, 047, 055, 0211, 0233?, 0248? ..." - A Closer Look: Early Manuscripts & The A.V.; by Jack Moorman, page 68;

Additionally:

"... TAITIAN, Diatessaron (I 10:85)

TERTULLIAN, On Modesty (I 4:83), "The Lord had come of course, to save that which 'had perished'." - Early Church Fathers And The Authorized Version, by Jack Moorman, page 40;

Also:

"... The entire verse is found in the Majority of all manuscripts, including D, E, F, G, H, I, K, M, N, S, U, V, W, X,Y, Sigma, Phi and Omega. It is the reading in the Old Latin copies a, aur, b, d, f, ff2, g1, l, n, q, r1 and r2.

It is also found in the Latin Vulgate, the Syriac Peshitta, Curetonian, Herclean, Coptic Boharic, Armenian, Georgian and Ethiopian ancient versions. It was also included in the Greek Diatessaron 160-175 A.D.

It is quoted by such early church writers as Hilary, Chrysostom, Chromatius and Augustine.

Westcott and Hort completely omitted the entire verse from their critical Greek text. And this is mainly because the verse is not found in Sinaiticus, or Vaticanus, and only a handful of other manuscripts. ...

... The entire verse is found in the following Bibles - the Anglo-Saxon Gospels circa 1000 A.D. - Mat 18:11 So?lice mannes sunu c?m to geh?lenne ?t forwear?, Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1534, Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549, the Bishops? Bible 1568, the Douay-Rheims 1582, the Geneva Bible 1587, the Beza N.T. 1599, Mace N.T. 1729, Wesley's N.T. 1755, Haweis N.T. 1795, the Living Oracles 1835, The Revised N.T. 1862, The Emphatic Diaglott 1865, The Revised English Bible 1877, Darby 1898, Young's 1898, the Clarke N.T. 1913, Lamsa's Translation of the Syriac Peshitta 1933, The New Berkeley Version 1969, the Living Bible 1971, New Century Version, The Voice 2012, the Passion Translation 2017 and the NKJV 1982. ...

... Foreign Language Bibles that have the whole verse in their text are the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569, Cipriano de Valera 1602, the Reina Valera 1909 - 2011, the Italian Diodati 1569, La Nuova Diodati 1991 and the Nuova Riveduta 2006, the French Martin 1744, Ostervald 1998 and French Louis Second 2007, Luther's German bible 1545 and the German Schlachter bible 2000, the Portuguese Almeida 1671 and 2009 and O Livro 2000, the Finnish Bible 1776 ..." - https://brandplucked.webs.com/matthew1811.htm

Also:

"... Burgon (14) p 92, states that the verse is attested by every known uncial except Aleph, B, L and every known cursive except three. Also bearing witness to the verse are the Old Latin, Peshitta, Curetonian and Philoxenian Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Georgian and Slavonic versions. Of the fathers citing the verse, Burgon lists: 2nd Century: Tertullian; 3rd Century: Origen; 4th Century: Ambrose, Augustine, Chrysostom, pope Damasus, Hilary, Jerome, Theodorus Heracl.

Burgon adds that the verse was read in the Universal Eastern Church on the day following Pentecost, from the beginning. Berry's Greek text also contains the verse. ..." - http://ecclesia.org/truth/manuscript_evidence.html

Sister White quotes Matthew 18:11 from the King James Bible as it reads in several places.
Posted By: kland

Re: Bible Doctrines affected by Modern Versions - 06/21/21 08:13 PM

I was shown, Brother M, that you need a great work done for you before you can exert an influence in the church to correct their errors or bring them up. You do not possess that humbleness of mind that can reach the hearts of God?s people. You are exalted. You need to examine your motives and your actions to see if your eye is single to the glory of God. Neither Brother O nor you is exactly fitted to meet the wants of the youth and the church generally. You do not come right down in simplicity to understand the best manner to help them. It does not have the best influence for you and Brother O to leave your seats and take your position upon the platform in front of the people. When you occupy that position, you feel that you must say or do something in accordance with the position you have taken. Instead of getting up and speaking a few words to the point, you frequently make lengthy remarks, which really hurt the spirit of the meeting. Many feel relieved when you sit down. Were you in a country place where there were but few to improve the time, such lengthy remarks would be more appropriate. {2T 419.1}

The work of the Lord is a great work, and wise men are needed to engage in it. Men are wanted who can adapt themselves to the wants of the people. If you expect to help the people you must not take your position above them, but right down among them. This is Brother O?s great fault. He is too stiff. It is not natural for him to use simplicity. He does not reason from cause to effect. He will not win affection and love. He does not come right down to the understanding of the children and speak in a touching manner which will melt its way to the heart. He stands up and talks to the children in a wise way, but it does them no good. His remarks are generally lengthy and wearisome. Sometimes if but one fourth were said that is said, a much better impression would be left on the mind. {2T 419.2}


Originally Posted by Matthew 10vs8

I shall provide once more, in charity, in long suffering and in the hopes of obtaining a sure ally in this long war that has been against the word of God since the beginning, the answer once more:

"God has preserved His words (Psalms 12:6-7; 1 Chronicles 16:15; Psalms 89:34, 105:8; Deuteronomy 8:3; Matthew 4:4, Luke 4:4; Matthew 5:18, 24:35; Mark 13:31; Luke 21:33; John 12:48) to this very present moment (now), and I have them in my hand by promise of God Himself, in the English of the KJB. ...

... "God already determined what is to be preserved (see references previously given). We do not decide. We may have evidence of God's preservation, but we do not use that evidence to decide what to preserve. It is not our prerogative to decide what is to be preserved, it belongs to God alone." ...

When compared in its own 'bones', 'bone with bone', line upon line'; the very foundational structure of the text, we see the pattern that emerges. ..."

In short, "Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them." (Matthew 7:20)

Jesus is much better a condensing things than I am. smile

But that in no way even begins to address my question.

Perhaps it may be useful for you to restate my question.
Posted By: Matthew 10vs8

Re: Bible Doctrines affected by Modern Versions - 06/21/21 09:23 PM

Originally Posted by kland
[i]I was shown, Brother M, that you need... Sometimes if but one fourth were said that is said, a much better impression would be left on the mind. {2T 419.2}
...
Sigh. The same old misuse of that quote (to which you will be held responsible for in the judgment). I have not even told you the half, nor counted myself above anyone. "One fourth"? You received a one page response, the chief and primary answer of which is found in the preface and first point of that page, of literally thousands of pages that could be given you, which in this period of time "such lengthy remarks would be more appropriate" (sic). As to the children, unless I am speaking to a six year old (are you?), I am speaking instead to an adult who is more than capable of reading and understanding a single page response, and even more so a single portion of that response given in preface and first point. Then, in charity, there was provided to you, a word from Jesus, in a single sentence if nothing else in the original page were to satisfy you. Oh, how easy it would be to simply post the SoP/ToJ in return to the misuse of it by yourself.

Ellen G White (James White, and multiple others) on many occasions would speak for upwards and beyond of 3 hours. How many pages do you think that is typed out? We do not have to guess, for we have some of those speeches.

Try quoting the whole context next time, otherwise I might think you purposefully misrepresenting the SoP/ToJ:

"... Those who instruct children should avoid tedious remarks. Short remarks and to the point will have a happy influence. If much is to be said, make up for briefness by frequency. A few words of interest now and then will be more beneficial than to have it all at once. Long speeches burden the small minds of children. Too much talk will lead them to loathe even spiritual instruction, just as overeating burdens the stomach and lessens the appetite, leading even to a loathing of food. The minds of the people may be glutted with too much speechifying. Labor for the church, but especially for the youth, should be line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little, and there a little. Give minds time to digest the truths you feed them. Children must be drawn toward heaven, not rashly, but very gently.

Battle Creek, Michigan,

October 2, 1868. ..."

Did you see the context about "instruct[ing] children" throughout the whole? kland, why do you not see your own faulty position in both aspects, that of the OP and here? Where is the humility to admit your error, when pointed out to you by one who loves you?

I gave no "speechifying", and I was speaking to no 'child' (unless I am mistaken and you are a toddler to be bandied upon the knee?). I gave you the facts, point blank with evidence. When I speak to children, I give very short studies about the glory of God in nature all around them, with pictures that they might comprehend in things that they relate to and I share what others have shared with me likewise. You can see that here -

[1] https://archive.org/download/object...ns%20%E2%80%93%20Coconut%20Theology.pptx

[2] https://archive.org/download/object...Gardener%20-%20Children%27s%20Study.pptx

[3] https://archive.org/download/faith-...%20%28Children%27s%20Lesson%29%2001.pptx

[4] https://archive.org/download/made-w...%20Hands%20-%20Children%27s%20Study.pptx

[5] https://archive.org/download/blessing-childrens-study/Blessing%20-%20Children%27s%20Study.pptx

[6] https://archive.org/download/follow...Leader%20-%20Children%27s%20Program.pptx

[7] https://archive.org/download/the-last-days-with-jesus/The%20Last%20Days%20With%20Jesus.pptx

So, are you a child of such an age, that I need to reduce my response to less than a page, use single syllable words, and have coloured pictures for you? Otherwise, please refrain from misusing the SoP/ToJ as you have and return to the OP subject. Thank you. If you disagree with the subject, state the facts that we, who understand the matter thoroughly, may reply with the same and engage in thoughtful study together.
Posted By: Matthew 10vs8

Re: Bible Doctrines affected by Modern Versions - 06/22/21 12:14 AM

Matthew 23:14 KJB - Mat 23:14? Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.?

Let's now consider the NWT and NIV Matthew 23:14, and show that they too follow Vaticanus and Sinaiticus:

Matthew 23:14 NWT - 14 ??
NWT Notation on Matthew 23:14 - "A few manuscripts add the words: ?Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because you devour widows? houses and for a pretense offer long prayers; on this account you will receive judgment more abundantly.? However, the earliest and most important manuscripts do not include this verse. Similar words, though, can be found at Mr 12:40 and Lu 20:47 as part of the inspired text.?See App. A3." - https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/study-bible/books/matthew/23/#v40023014

Again, that which is stated is a lie, not only referring to Mark 12:40 and Luke 20:47 which does have the words, the NWT notation again falsely says, "... the earliest and most important manuscripts do not include this verse ..."

Matthew 23:14 NIV:

"14 [a]

[a] Matthew 23:14 Some manuscripts include here words similar to Mark 12:40 and Luke 20:47." - https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2023%3A14&version=NIV


The words do not occur in the following corrupted texts:

Aleph (Sinaiticus), B (Vaticanus), D, L, Z, Theta, pc, fam 1, a, aur, d, e, ff1, g1,2, q, Vulgate, sin, pal-ms, sa, bo-pt, mae, Arm-zoh.

So when the WTS/JW notation says, "A few manuscripts add the words ...", they are attempting to negate the vast extant literature which has the text in it:

"... E, F, G, H, K, M, O, S, U, V, W, Y
Gamma, Delta-gr, Theta-c, Pi, Sigma, Omega
0104
Cursives: MAJORITY, (fam 13)
Old Latin: b, c, f, ff2, h, l, r1,2, Vulgate-pt
Syriac: Pes.hitta, Curetonian, Harclean, Palestinean-mss
Coptic: Bohairic-pt
Armenian-usc (apparently), Ethiopic

... Also extant in Phi, 047, 055, 0211, 0233?, 0257? ..." - A Closer Look: Early Manuscripts & The A.V.; by Jack Moorman, page 71

Moreover:

"... Patristic Evidentiary Support for the Genuineness of the above Passage - THE EARLY CHURCH FATHERS 38 VOLUME SET DIGITAL VERSION

170 A.D. Early Church Fathers - Ante-Nicene Fathers - Volume 9 - The Diatessaron of Tatian. - The Diatessaron. - Section 40.

[32] And in the course of his teaching he said unto them, Guard yourselves from the [33] scribes, who desire to walk in robes, and love salutation in the marketplaces, and sitting in the highest places of the synagogues, and at feasts in the highest parts of [34] the rooms: and they broaden their amulets, and lengthen the cords of their cloaks, [35] and love that they should be called by men, My master, and DEVOUR WIDOWS? HOUSES, BECAUSE OF THEIR PROLONGING THEIR PRAYERS; THESE THEN SHALL RECEIVE GREATER JUDGEMENT.

170 A.D. Early Church Fathers - Ante-Nicene Fathers - Volume 9 - The Diatessaron of Tatian. - The Diatessaron. - Section 40.

[42] ?WOE UNTO YOU, SCRIBES AND PHARISEES, HYPOCRITES! BECAUSE YE DEVOUR WIDOWS? HOUSES, BECAUSE OF YOUR PROLONGING YOUR PRAYERS; FOR THIS REASON YE SHALL RECEIVE GREATER JUDGMENT.?

347-407 A.D. Early Church Fathers - Nicene & Post-Nicene Fathers - First Series - Volume 10 - St. Chrysostom: Homilies on the Gospel of Saint Matthew - The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom. - Homily LXX - Matthew 23:14.

?WOE UNTO YOU, SCRIBES AND PHARISEES, HYPOCRITES! FOR YE DEVOUR WIDOWS? HOUSES, AND FOR A PRETENSE MAKE LONG PRAYERS; THEREFORE YE SHALL RECEIVE GREATER DAMNATION.?

347-407 A.D. Early Church Fathers - Nicene & Post-Nicene Fathers - First Series - Volume 11 - Saint Chrysostom: Homilies on the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistle to the Romans - The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans - Homily XXXII on Rom. 16:17, 18.

And Christ also blames them on this head: ?YE DEVOUR WIDOWS? HOUSES? (Matt 23:14), He says. And the Prophets accuse them of things of the kind. ..." - https://brandplucked.webs.com/matthew2314scripture.htm

Also:

"...Ruckman (2) p 102, (54) p 15, states that the omission can be traced to Origen, whose influence is responsible for the omission of the verse in the Alexandrian manuscripts. Berry's Greek text contains verse 14, although transposing it with verse 13. ..." - http://ecclesia.org/truth/manuscript_evidence.html

Sister White quotes Matthew 23:14 even in the Desire of Ages, as found in the "common" Bible - https://text.egwwritings.org/search...ort&hitsOnPage=20&sortBy=perbook

This demonstrates the error of the Roman lengthy 'prayers', and their greed for property, lands and titles. Even Wycliffe fought against such abuses.
Posted By: kland

Re: Bible Doctrines affected by Modern Versions - 06/22/21 01:14 PM

Originally Posted by Matthew 10vs8

Try quoting the whole context next time, otherwise I might think you purposefully misrepresenting the SoP/ToJ:

"... Those who instruct children should avoid tedious remarks. ...
Battle Creek, Michigan,

October 2, 1868. ..."

My apologies, I searched and found many passages and selected which I thought was best. You could very well be correct. I read above the passage, but failed to read below it. However, I would need more information to understand that she was referring to Brother M. only instructing children and not additionally adults. The first part still appears to refer to non-children, but I could be wrong. Is it possible she referred to brother M. with adults and compared him to brother O. with children?

Quote
Did you see the context about "instruct[ing] children" throughout the whole?
No. Not throughout the whole, only brother O. and after.

Quote
Ellen G White (James White, and multiple others) on many occasions would speak for upwards and beyond of 3 hours. How many pages do you think that is typed out? We do not have to guess, for we have some of those speeches.
It is not just the quantity, but the extra words which add no benefit. One can say a lot and convey a lot, while one can say a lot and convey very little.

I take it you are familiar with many more quotes used against you so I need not search further. But ask yourself, do you think there may be a problem if more than one person is indicating an issue in your delivery?
Posted By: Matthew 10vs8

Re: Bible Doctrines affected by Modern Versions - 06/22/21 10:39 PM

Mar 7:16? KJB If any man have ears to hear, let him hear.?

Let's now consider the NWT and/or NIV of Mark 7:16, and show that it too follows Vaticanus and Sinaiticus:

Mark 7:16 NWT - 16 ??

NWT Notation on Mark 7:16 - "Some manuscripts here include the words ?If anyone has ears to listen, let him listen,? but they do not appear in important early manuscripts. Therefore, these words are evidently not part of the original text of Mark. Similar words, though, can be found at Mr 4:9, 23 as part of the inspired Scriptures. Some scholars are of the opinion that a copyist introduced these words here as a natural comment following verse 14 by drawing from the wording at Mr 4:9, 23.?See App. A3." - https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/study-bible/books/mark/7/#v41007016

Again, that which is stated is a lie, not only referring to Mark 4:9,23 which does have the words, the NWT notation again falsely says, "... Some manuscripts ... but they do not appear in important early manuscripts ..."

"Important"? Who decided that Sinaiticus and Vaticanus were "important", or even "early" or even accurate or true?

The NIV notation on Mark 7:16:

" 16 [a]

[a] Mark 7:16 Some manuscripts include here the words of 4:23." - https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+7%3A16&version=NIV

The "words of 4:23"? Are they kidding?

The words do not occur in the following corrupted/emended texts:

Aleph (Sinaiticus), B (Vaticanus), L, Delta*, 0274, 28, 2427

Yet, even in the Nestle/Aland footnotes, they specifically make mention of those texts that they know it to be in, though this is not all of the materials that it does exist in:

"... A, D, W
Theta
?1,13,
33
?
latt sy ..." - Mark 7, New English Translation (NET) | The Bible App or NETBible: Mark 7 - https://www.bible.com/bible/107/MRK.7.net

Peter Ruckman, cites:

"... Tatian's Diatessaron (180 AD) and the Gothic version of Ulfilas (320 AD) as the earliest authorities for this verse. Berry's Greek text supports this passage. ..." - Manuscript Evidence for Disputed Verses - http://ecclesia.org/truth/manuscript_evidence.html

Thomas Aquinas, cites in Catena Aurea:

"... Pseudo-Chrys., Vict. Ant. e Cat. in Marc.: Again He subjoins, ?If any man have ears to hear, let him hear.? For He had not clearly shewn them, what those things are which proceed out of a man, and defile a man; and on account of this saying, the Apostles thought that the foregoing discourse of the Lord implied some other deep thing. ..." - St. Thomas Aquinas: Catena Aurea - Gospel of Mark - Christian Classics Ethereal Library - https://ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/catena2/catena2.iii.vii.html

Removing this phrase at this location lessens the importance of the Holy Ghost's instruction, which is to be brought to the heart, and also seeks to negate the function of the parable (Matthew 15 in parallel) itself by reducing it to mere physical items, for Roman Catholics (as Apostate Protestantism also) take these words and reject the health laws of God (OT and NT), teaching that this passage gives license to eating anything.
Posted By: Matthew 10vs8

Re: Bible Doctrines affected by Modern Versions - 06/22/21 10:47 PM

Originally Posted by kland

Quote
Did you see the context about "instruct[ing] children" throughout the whole?
No. Not throughout the whole, only brother O. and after.
The portion you gave:

"... Neither Brother O nor you is exactly fitted to meet the wants of the youth and the church generally. You do not come right down in simplicity to understand the best manner to help them. ...

... He [Brother O] does not come right down to the understanding of the children and speak in a touching manner which will melt its way to the heart. He stands up and talks to the children ..."

Brother O is also given as example to Brother M in the matter of "youth" (which is part of the "them", the rest being the "church generally"), "children".

I cannot help you. It is a case of 'willingly'. Feel free to participate in the discussion of the OP subject. I will leave you be for the time being.
Posted By: Matthew 10vs8

Re: Bible Doctrines affected by Modern Versions - 06/23/21 03:36 AM

Mar 9:44?KJB Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.?

Let's now consider the NWT Mark 9:44, and show that it too follows Vaticanus and Sinaiticus:

Mark 9:44 NWT - 44 ??

"... Some manuscripts read here ?where their maggot does not die and the fire is not put out,? but these words do not appear in important early manuscripts. Similar words do appear in verse 48, where there is no uncertainty regarding the text. Evidence suggests that a scribe or scribes repeated the words from verse 48 in verses 44 and 46.?See App. A3. ..." - https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/study-bible/books/mark/9/#v41009044

Again, that which is stated is a lie, not only referring to Mark 9:48 which does have the words, the NWT notation again falsely says, "... Some manuscripts ... but these words do not appear in important early manuscripts ..."

Mark 9:44 NIV:

" 44 [a]

[a] Mark 9:44 Some manuscripts include here the words of verse 48." - https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+9%3A44&version=NIV

The words do not occur in the following corrupted texts:

Aleph (Sinaiticus), B (Vaticanus), C, L, W, Delta, Psi, pc, fam 1, sin, Coptic: sa, bo, fay, Arm-zoh,mss

So when the WTS/JW notation says, "... these words do not appear in important early manuscripts ...", they are attempting to negate the vast extant literature which has the text in it:

"... A, D, E, F, G, H, K, M, N, S, U, V, X, Y
Theta, Pi, Sigma, Phi, Omega
Cursives: MAJORITY, fam 13
Old Latin: a, aur, b, c, d, ff2, g2, i, l, q, r1, Vulgate
Syriac: Pes.hitta, Harclean
Gothic, Armenian-usc (apparently), Ethiopic

Also extant in 047?. 055, 0211, 0233?, 0257?, 0274 ..." - A Closer Look: Early Manuscripts & The A.V.; by Jack Moorman, pages 79-80;

Additionally:

"... TATIAN, Diatessaron (I 10:82)

GREGORY OF NAZIANZEN, Orations (III 7:373) ... There are no indications in the ANPF indices of a pre-400 Father skipping from verse 43 to 45 in his quotation. ..." - Early Church Fathers And The Authorized Version, by Jack Moorman, page 43

More:

"... Berry's Greek text supports this passage. ..." - Manuscript Evidence for Disputed Verses - http://ecclesia.org/truth/manuscript_evidence.html

More:

"... the Latin Vulgate and the Clementine Vulgate, the Syriac Palestinian, Harclean, the Ethiopic, Slavonic and the Gothic ancient versions. It is the reading in the Modern Greek Bibles used throughout the Greek speaking world in the Orthodox churches today. ...

The verses are included in the Anglo-Saxon Gospels Corpus Christi Mss. 140 circa 1000 A.D. Though we cannot read it, it was obviously in this predecessor to the English Bibles - Mark 9:44 ?ar hyra wyrm ne swylt & fyr ne bi? acwenced;

Mark 9:45 And gif ?in fot swica? ?e ceorf hine of. betere ?e is ?t ?u healt g?. on ?c? lif ?onne ?u h?bbe twegen fet & si aworpen on helle un-acwencedlices fyres. Mark 9:46 ?ar hyra wyrm ne swylt ne fyr ne bi? adw?sced ...

...

354-430 A.D. Early Church Fathers - Nicene & Post-Nicene Fathers - First Series - Volume 2 - St. Augustin: City of God, Christian Doctrine - City of God - Book XXI - Of the eternal punishment of the wicked in hell, and of the various objections urged against it. - Chapter 9 - Of Hell, and the Nature of Eternal Punishments.

?It is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched; WHERE THEIR WORM DIETH NOT, AND THEIR FIRE IS NOT QUENCHED.? Similarly of the foot: ?It is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched; WHERE THEIR WORM DIETH NOT, AND THE FIRE IS NOT QUENCHED.? So, too, of the eye: ?It is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire: WHERE THEIR WORM DIETH NOT, AND THE FIRE IS NOT QUENCHED.?

HE DID NOT SHRINK FROM USING THE SAME WORDS THREE TIMES OVER IN ONE PASSAGE. And who is not terrified by this repetition, and by the threat of that punishment uttered so vehemently by the lips of the Lord Himself?"
" - https://brandplucked.webs.com/mark94446.htm

Also:

"Ruckman (2) p 122, states that A, D, K, X, Theta, Pi and the majority of Receptus Greek manuscripts support this passage. The verses were omitted in the manuscripts of Origen and Eusebius (i.e. Aleph and B). Berry's Greek text supports this passage." - http://ecclesia.org/truth/manuscript_evidence.html

Removing this text, as in the emended and corrupted texts, breaks the parallelism and structure. The phrase must be there to complete the structure:

Mar 9:43? And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:?
Mar 9:44? Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.?
Mar 9:45? And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:?
Mar 9:46? Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.?
Mar 9:47? And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire:?
Mar 9:48? Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.?

It is given in an A B, A B, A B, pattern

[A.] vs 43 main response (hand)
[B.] vs 44 citation of Isaiah 66:24
[A.] vs 45 main response (parallel) (foot)
[B.] vs 46 citation of Isaiah 66:24 (parallel)
[A.] vs 47 main response (parallel) (eye)
[B.] vs 48 citation of Isaiah 66:24 (parallel)
Posted By: Matthew 10vs8

Re: Bible Doctrines affected by Modern Versions - 06/24/21 02:10 AM

The greatest doctrine affected by modern versions is the doctrine of 'preservation' (Psalms 12:6-7, &c), for they deny it in practicality, which is really an attack/assault upon the promises of God, and His own unchanging character.
Posted By: Matthew 10vs8

Re: Bible Doctrines affected by Modern Versions - 06/24/21 03:47 PM

Originally Posted by kland
Again, should those verses be included in the Bible or not? ...
1 John 5:7.

My stated goals, is to rescue the perishing, care for the dying, to snatch them in pity from sin and the grave; and so I weep over the erring one, and now must attempt to lift up the fallen, and re-tell them of the true and everlasting Jesus, who is mighty to save.? Jesus is merciful, Jesus will save.

There are those advocating the "trinity" of Romanism by this passage (1 John 5:6-8) and/or verse (1 John 5:7) of which the scripture neither intimates, or teaches. The SoP/ToJ also denies the "trinity" of Romanism, as do the vast majority of the pioneers themselves. As Seventh-day Adventists we do not accept the "trinity" of Romanism (definition upon request), neither do we accept Credalism (Summa of Aquinas, Aquiliean, Apostles, Nicene, Athanasius, etc), but we accept the Bible (word of God) as the final authority in all matters of faith and practice.

There are also those these days denying the [1] eternality of the Person/Being the Son, and [2] the Person/Being of the Holy Ghost/Spirit, teaching that there are only 'two beings' and 'three personalities'.

Such things are grievous error, and against the most plainly stated texts within the scripture [the preserved word of God in English, the King James Bible [KJB], aka the common Bible or AV (Authorized Version)] and against the SoP/ToJ and even certain pioneers, such as sister White in her personal materials, James White in his later mature materials, Joseph Bates, A. T. Jones, and others.

Truth:

"... The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, the eternal Godhead ..." - Ms 45, May 14, 1904, par. 16; May 14, 1904

[Please note, that it does not say "the eternal God", but rather "the eternal Godhead".? The word Godhead is used differently than the word God.]

"... There are three living persons of the heavenly trio; in the name of these three great powers?the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit?those who receive Christ by living faith are baptized, and these powers will co-operate with the obedient subjects of heaven in their efforts to live the new life in Christ. ..." - Ms 21, 1906 (November 1905) par. 11

[please note the difference between merely "three" and "trio" [three working together in one accord, at-one-ment, "chord", etc], proof upon request of the differing definition.]

"... Here is where the work of the Holy Ghost comes in, after your baptism. You are baptized in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. You are raised up out of the water to live henceforth in newness of life?to live a new life. You are born unto God, and you stand under the sanction and the power of the three holiest beings in heaven, who are able to keep you from falling. You are to reveal that you are dead to sin; your life is hid with Christ in God. Hidden ?with Christ in God??wonderful transformation. This is a most precious promise. When I feel oppressed and hardly know how to relate myself toward the work that God has given me to do, I just call upon the three great Worthies, and say: You know I cannot do this work in my own strength. You must work in me, and by me, and through me, sanctifying my tongue, sanctifying my spirit, sanctifying my words, and bringing me into a position where my spirit shall be susceptible to the movings of the Holy Spirit of God upon my mind and character. Ms95-1906 (October 20, 1906) par. 29

And this is the prayer that every one of us may offer. ..." - Ms 95, 1906 (October 20, 1906) par. 29 [there are multiple carbons of the original, this is untampered]

[please note the "three ... beings", not 'two beings', and capital "W" in "three great Worthies", which all of whom are called upon unitedly in a prayer by sister White.]

I have many, many more, all citations upon request, in their orderly years, and in all their known instances and forms, capitals, lowercase, varied forms, etc. Ask, and you shall receive. One may also simply see this link - https://www.christianforums.com/thr...quick-references-three-trio-etc.8060685/

See also the complete evidence for 1 John 5:7 here - https://www.christianforums.com/thr...-the-evidence-for-1-john-5-7-kjb.8060173

See also the complete meaning of Proverbs 8:22-31 KJB - https://www.christianforums.com/thr...meaning-of-proverbs-8-22-31-kjb.8060316/

One of the assaults, by such in error, upon the word of God today, is the doubt ["Yea, hath God said ..."; Genesis 3:1 KJB] instilled in others about the validity of 1 John 5:7 KJB.? Instead of reading the text and accepting what it means contextually, there is instead an assault to remove it out of the way at the beginning, in spite of the solid evidence for it.? It is claimed all in the name of good.

What follows is a lengthy evidence, take your time.? It is a resource tool. citing in part:

The Manuscriptural evidence:

[1] Manuscripts [MSS]

Cursives [Greek lowercase]:

[01] #61 [aka Codex Montfortianus] - 16th Cent.
[02] #88 [aka Codex Regis [margin, 16th Cent.]] - 12th Cent.
[03] #177 [BSB Codex graeci 211 [margin, 15th Cent.] - 11th Cent.
[04] #221 [margin, 15th/16th Cent.] - 10th Cent.
[05] #429 [aka Codex Wolfenbuttel, margin, 16th Cent.] - 14th Cent.
[06] #629 [aka Codex Ottobonianus] - 14th Cent.
[07] #535 - 11th Cent.
[08] #636 [margin] - 15th Cent.
[09] #918 - 16th Cent.
[10] #2318 - 18th Cent.
[11] #2473 - 18th Cent.​

Latin:​

[01] c [aka Codex Colbertinus, aka 6, 12th/13th Cent. [1200]]
[02] dem [aka Codex Demidovianus, aka 59, 13th Cent. [1250]]
[03] div [aka Codex Divionensis, aka ?, 13th Cent. [1250]]
[04] l [aka Codex Legionensis, aka 67, 7th Cent. [750]]
[05] m [aka Codex Speculum, aka ?, 4th-9th Cent.]
[06] p [aka Codex Perpinianensis, aka 54, 12th/13th Cent. [1150]]
[07] q [aka Codex Frisingensis, aka 64, 7h Cent. [650]]
[08] r [aka Codex Frisingensis, aka 64, 5th/6th Cent.]
[09] Vulgate [Clementine edition]
[10] La Cava Bible [aka Codex Cavensis [9th Cent.]]
[11] Codex Ulmensis [9th Cent.]
[12] C [aka Codex Complutensis, 10th Cent.]
[13] T [aka Codex Toletanus, 10th Cent.]
[14] Θ [Codex Theodulphianus, 10th Cent.]
[15] S 907 [aka Codex Sangallensis 907, 8th Cent.]
[16] S 63 [aka Codex Sangallensis 63, 9th Cent.]​

?testimonium dicunt [or dant] in terra, spiritus [or: spiritus et] aqua et sanguis, et hi tres unum sunt in Christo Iesu. [8] et tres sunt, qui testimonium dicunt in caelo, pater verbum et spirtus.?​

[2] ?Church Fathers? [so-called]

[01] Tertullian [circa. AD 220]

[02] Cyprian of Carthage [circa. AD 258], Treatises (I 5:423): ?... and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, 'And these three are one.' ...?

[03] Priscillan [circa. AD 358]

[04] Idacius Clatus [4th cent.]

[05] The Speculum [5th Cent.], Pseudo-Augustine

[06] Creed ?Esposito Fidei [5th/6th Cent.]

[07] Old Latin [5th/6th Cent.]

[08] Confession of Faith of Eugenius, Bishop of Carthage [circa. AD 484]

[09] Cassiodoris of Italy [circa. AD 480-570] in Complexiones in Ionis Epist. ad Parthos.
Thus:? "... Clementine edition of Vulgate translation; Pseudo-Augustine's Speculum Peccatoris (V), also (these three with some variation) Cyprian, Ps-Cyprian, & Priscillian (died 385) Liber Apologeticus. And Contra-Varimadum, and Ps-Vigilius, Fulgentius of Ruspe (died 527) Responsio contra Arianos, Cassiodorus Complexiones in Ioannis Epist. ad Parthos. ..." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comma_Johanneum#Manuscripts

?? ?at least four Old Latin manuscripts, over eight ?Church Fathers? (including Cyprian who died A.D. 258), four Syriac editions, Slavic and Armenian manuscripts, over 600 distinct editions of the Textus Receptus from 1522 to 1881, 18 pre-Lutheran Bibles, and thousands of Vulgate manuscripts. Among Greek manuscripts which do omit this verse, 97% are late manuscripts, dated from the 10th century and later.?1 ?? - Ridiculous KJV Bible Corrections - 1 John 5:7 Scams - http://av1611.com/kjbp/ridiculous-kjv-bible-corrections/1-John-5-7-Scams.html

?? Some Syriac Peshitto manuscripts, The Syriac Edition at Hamburg, Bishop Uscan?s Armenian Bible, the Armenian Edition of John Zohrob, the first printed Georgian Bible.

... The evidence is overwhelming for the authenticity of 1 John 5:7-8. Keep in mind that it was Origen who was the father of the false manuscripts who removed this verse as he did verses like Acts 8:37 and Luke 24:40. The Alexandrian school was no friend of the true manuscripts which were taken from Antioch and mutilated according to Gnostic beliefs.? - http://www.scionofzion.com/1 john 5 78.htm

[3] Lectionaries

[01] ?some minority variant readings in lectionaries.?​

The varied Manuscripts [MSS] codices, papyri, palimpsests, etc are not the foundation of proof [for all things require faith in God's word as foundation], but merely further evidence for confirmation.

The Historical evidence:

"... it is found in Codex 61 of the 15-16th century, kept in Dublin and known as the Montfort manuscript, Codex Ravianus (Wizanburgensis) of the 8th century and in the margins of 88 and 629.

The main authorities for the passage are the Old Latin text of the 2nd century, including manuscript r (5/6th cent.) and the "Speculum," a treatise containing the Old Latin text, and several fathers. Fuller (4) p 213, citing Wilkinson, states that the passage was found in the Old Latin Bibles of the Waldenses, whose text pre-dated Jerome's Vulgate. See also Ray (15) p 98, who states that this "Italic" Bible dates from 157 AD. The Old Latin text carried sufficient weight to influence the later copies of the Vulgate, most of which from 800 AD onward incorporated the passage.

The fathers who cite the passage are Tertullian (2nd cent.), Cyprian (250 AD), Priscillian (385 AD), Idacius Clatus (385 AD), several African writers of the 5th century and Cassiodorus (480-570 AD).

The combined influence of these authorities, together with grammatical difficulties which arise if the Comma is omitted, was sufficient to ensure its place in most editions of the Textus Receptus-see Berry's text- where it undoubtedly belongs.

See Hills (3) p 209, (38) p 210, the TBS (58) "Notes on the Vindication of I John 5:7" and Ruckman (2) p 128-9, (31) p 334. The omission of the Comma from the majority of the manuscripts most likely stems from the influence of Origen and some of his supporters ..." - http://ecclesia.org/truth/manuscript_evidence.html

"... Here is just a partial list of those who contended for the authenticity of this verse.

Cyprian - 250 AD, Athanasius 350 A.D., Priscillian -385 AD, Jerome 420 AD, Fulgentius (late 5th century), Cassiodorus, Isidore of Seville, Jaqub of Edessa, Thomas Aquinas, John Wycliffe, Desiderus Erasmus, Stephanus, Lopez de Zuniga, John Calvin, Theodore Beza, Cipriano de Valera, John Owen, Francis Turretin, John Wesley, John Gill, Matthew Henry, Andrew Fuller, Luis Gaussen, Frederick Nolan, Robert L. Dabney, Thomas Strouse, Floyd Jones, Peter Ruckman, George Ricker Berry, Edward F. Hills, David Otis Fuller, Thomas Holland, Michael Maynard and Donald A. Waite. ..." - https://brandplucked.webs.com/1john57.htm

For quick details see - https://www.scionofzion.com/why_1_john_5_7_8.htm

For quick details alternate see - https://www.jesus-is-lord.com/1john57.htm

The short historical accounting - https://av1611.com/kjbp/faq/holland_1jo5_7.html

The great detailed historical accounting - https://www.wayoflife.org/reports/a-defense-of-1-john.php

Even John Gill understood these things in regards 1 John 5:7 -

"... "There are three that bear record in heaven"

? ? ... When he says, "These three are one", he refers not to essence, but on the contrary to consent; as though he had said that the Father and his eternal Word and Spirit harmoniously testify the same thing respecting Christ. Hence some copies have εἰς ἓν, "for one". But though you read ἓν εἰσιν, as in other copies, yet there is no doubt but that the Father, the Word and the Spirit are said to be one, in the same sense in which afterwards the blood and the water and the Spirit are said to agree in one. ..." - John Calvin, Commentaries on the catholic epistles, tr. and ed. by John Owen, 1855, p. 258.

A pioneer T. M. Preble understood this text of 1 John 5:7 this way, though he was in error in other ways:

".. Because it is said of Christ that he and his Father are one; it does not mean that Jesus was his own Father! And because they are one in attributes or power; they are not one, numerically! for there are three that bear record in heaven, and these three are one-these three agree in one! 1 John 5:7, 8. TTA 18.3 ..." - The Two Adams, page 18.3

The verse cannot be (correctly) used to support the 'trinitarians', neither the 'unitarians' (though both are two sides of the same coin, ultimately teaching 'singularity').

There are numerous more evidences as to why 1 John 5:7 is original, such as from the linguistical in syntax, structure and language (John uses the word "Word" in reference to the Son).
Posted By: Rick H

Re: Bible Doctrines affected by Modern Versions - 07/03/21 12:56 AM

Here is part of the comparison on the KJV vs NKJV...

"New King James Version Omissions
NKJV omits the word "Lord" 66 times
NKJV omits the word "God" 51 times
NKJV omits the word "heaven" 50 times
NKJV omits the word "repent" 44 times
NKJV omits the word "blood" 23 times
NKJV omits the word "hell" 22 times
NKJV omits the word "JEHOVAH" entirely
NKJV omits the word "new testament" entirely
NKJV omits the word "damnation" entirely
NKJV omits the word "devils" entirely
NKJV ignored the KJV Greek Textus Receptus over 1200 times
NKJV replaced the KJV Hebrew (ben Chayyim) with the corrupt Stuttgart edition (ben Asher) Old Testament

NKJV Demotes Jesus Christ
NKJV -KJV
Luke 13:8 Sir -Lord
Matthew 18:26 before him saying, Master -and worshipped him saying, Lord
Matthew 20:20 kneeling down -worshipping him
Matthew 26:64 right hand of the Power -right hand of power
Genesis 22:8 God will provide for himself the lamb -God will provide himself a lamb
John 8:35 a son -the Son
Colossians 2:2 the mystery of God, both of the Father and of Christ -the mystery of God, and of the Father, and of Christ (Trinity)
Matthew 8:19 et al. Teacher -Master
Matthew 19:16 Good Teacher -Good Master
Matthew 22:16 Teacher -Master
Matthew 23:8 One is your Teacher, the Christ -one is your Master, even Christ
Matthew 23:10 And do not be called teachers, for One is your Teacher, the Christ -Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ..."

https://www.angelfire.com/la2/prophet1/NKJVOmissions.html
Posted By: Matthew 10vs8

Re: Bible Doctrines affected by Modern Versions - 07/03/21 03:55 AM

Originally Posted by Rick H
Here is part of the comparison on the KJV vs NKJV...

"New King James Version Omissions
NKJV omits the word "Lord" 66 times
NKJV omits the word "God" 51 times
NKJV omits the word "heaven" 50 times
NKJV omits the word "repent" 44 times
NKJV omits the word "blood" 23 times
NKJV omits the word "hell" 22 times
NKJV omits the word "JEHOVAH" entirely
NKJV omits the word "new testament" entirely
NKJV omits the word "damnation" entirely
NKJV omits the word "devils" entirely
NKJV ignored the KJV Greek Textus Receptus over 1200 times
NKJV replaced the KJV Hebrew (ben Chayyim) with the corrupt Stuttgart edition (ben Asher) Old Testament

NKJV Demotes Jesus Christ
NKJV -KJV
Luke 13:8 Sir -Lord
Matthew 18:26 before him saying, Master -and worshipped him saying, Lord
Matthew 20:20 kneeling down -worshipping him
Matthew 26:64 right hand of the Power -right hand of power
Genesis 22:8 God will provide for himself the lamb -God will provide himself a lamb
John 8:35 a son -the Son
Colossians 2:2 the mystery of God, both of the Father and of Christ -the mystery of God, and of the Father, and of Christ (Trinity)
Matthew 8:19 et al. Teacher -Master
Matthew 19:16 Good Teacher -Good Master
Matthew 22:16 Teacher -Master
Matthew 23:8 One is your Teacher, the Christ -one is your Master, even Christ
Matthew 23:10 And do not be called teachers, for One is your Teacher, the Christ -Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ..."

https://www.angelfire.com/la2/prophet1/NKJVOmissions.html
Oh, it is much much worse than that, for it is even subtil (Genesis 3:1).

[1]

Read the Preface to the NKJV, for it mocks the KJB at every opportunity by both the spirit of the King of the North (Alexander Geddes; Roman Catholic scholar, Religious Humanism), and South (Bernard Shaw; Atheist, Secular Humanism), even as satan mocked Christ Jesus upon the Cross. I can show any who desire it in great detail.

Page iii, Paragraph 4 [personal notes in brackets], just take out youor NKJV and read the Preface without my notes first, then read with the notes/comments:

?... In 1786 [This date is a reflection upon 'modern' 'scholarship'?] Catholic [Roman] scholar Alexander Geddes [Why are the Preface writers [which are supposed to be carrying on the ?legacy? of the Protestant [and True] faith, suddenly so interested in what Roman Catholicism's [the Little Horn of Daniel 7 and the first Beast of Revelation 13] faithful would say? We are about to find out.] said of the King James Bible [Wait for the sarcasm and veiled mockery to sink in ...], ?If [said the devil, Matthew 4:3,6, 27:40; Luke 4:3,9] accuracy and strictest attention to the letter of the text be supposed [Whoa, right where every one could see it! Hey, your split tongue is showing ? Psalms 73:9, 109:2, 120:3; Jeremiah 9:5,8] to constitute an excellent version, this is of all versions the most excellent.? [Did you catch all of the sarcasm and veiled mockery? If not, read it again. These Preface writers are either totally ignorant of the true intent and context of the Roman Catholic 'scholar' Alexander Geddes remarks, or they have knowingly, purposefully, presumptuously, boldly and wickedly been accomplice to the broad daylight knifing of the KJB in the ?face?. I could perhaps still vote for ignorance if enough evidence was supplied to that end, but in such a case, it immediately does not present a very educated front for those which say they are ?scholars?, for if they cannot even get the plain meaning of everyday English, why would I trust them in translation of any foreign and/or ancient tongues into English?] George Bernard Shaw [Now, they're citing an avowed atheist ...] became a literary legend [Legend? To whom? Certainly not any [KJ] Bible believing person. Simply amazing, is the fact, that the Preface writers of the NKJV cite the very two elements/spirits [being one at the root] opposed to the KJB on all fronts, namely the King of the North [Papacy, Religious Humanism] and the King of the South [Atheism, Secular Humanism]:

"...The one withheld from the people the truths of the Bible; the other taught them to reject both the Bible and its Author. ..." - SoP Volume 4, page 192 [but read the surrounding also 190-193, etc]

?14-16 (Ephesians 6:12; see EGW comment on Revelation 5:11). Two Opposing Powers?Two great opposing powers are revealed in the last great battle. On one side stands the Creator of heaven and earth. All on His side bear His signet. They are obedient to His commands. On the other side stands the prince of darkness, with those who have chosen apostasy and rebellion (The Review and Herald, May 7, 1901).? - S.D.A. Bible Commentary Vol. 7, p. 982.8 (1)

and see also:

KJB 1 Corinthians 1:20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?; KJB 1 Corinthians 2:6 Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought:; KJB 1 Corinthians 3:19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.] in the twentieth century because of his severe [Ahem, 'foolish', afterall scripture [KJB] says: Psalms 14:1, 53:1 ?... The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. ...?; Proverbs 30:9 Lest I be full, and deny thee, and say, Who is the LORD? or lest I be poor, and steal, and take the name of my God in vain.] and often humorous [Ahem, 'folly', KJB Psalms 49:13 This their way is their folly: yet their posterity approve their sayings. Selah.] criticisms of our most cherished values [KJB Galatians 6:7 Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.; KJB Psalms 2:4 He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision.; KJB Psalms 37:13 The Lord shall laugh at him: for he seeth that his day is coming.; KJB Psalms 59:8 But thou, O LORD, shalt laugh at them; thou shalt have all the heathen in derision.]. Surprisingly [Not really, since Shaw, is merely admiring a poetic ?form?.], however, Shaw pays the following tribute [Pshaw! John 5:44 How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only?] to the scholars commissioned by King James: ?The translation was extraordinarily well done because to the translators [Indeed, ?to? them, but not to himself.] what they were translating was not [What Shaw really believes coming up...] merely a curious collection of ancient books written by different authors in different stages of culture [Did you notice what he really believes?], but the Word of God divinely revealed through His chosen and expressly inspired scribes [Which Shaw, himself, believes none of.]. In this conviction [And since Shaw does not believe in God, the ?conviction? came from???] they carried out their work with boundless reverence and care and achieved a beautifully artistic [Notice, He didn't say anything about Truth, but rather ?artistic?, ie. ?form?, [ie the 'poetic' structure, and lyrical bounce], as the Preface writers are about to refer to.] result.? History agrees with these [Wow! Some praise that was ? Be honest, is the sarcasm showing?, if so, perhaps it should be tucked in a little further.] estimates [Here is what all should take notice of, in what the Preface writers are really getting at, as they just agreed with a Roman Catholic and an Atheist, in their subtil mockings. Take careful note, that they are not, I repeat not, saying, that the KJB translators had accurate and preserved materials, but merely that they accurately translated what they had available to them, in which they would say were merely a miniscule amount of late manuscripts, with many emendations by scribes who erred here and there, needing to be corrected by the early Alexandrian texts, and thus simply speak about the outward ?form? itself, not the actual texts.]. Therefore, while seeking to unveil [Which means that the Preface writers believe that the KJB is veiled [obscure, dark, needing to be 'enlightened' and/or 'illuminated' [2 Corinthians 11:14]], and needs to be 'unveiled' through the other Alexandrian mss, the so-called LXX, the Latin Vulgate of Jerome, German Socialists ? the Kittel's [Gerhard, Rudolph], Hermann von Soden's personal and haphazard collation, and their own petty ideas, etc] the excellent form [Hey, they italicized it for emphasis, and for specific reason, as has been shown. The Preface writers do not believe that the KJB is the word of God.] of the traditional [Traditional?] English Bible, special care [Oh, indeed!] has also been taken in the present edition to preserve the work of precision [Again, take note of the italics here.], which is the legacy [Simply, ?form? and ?precision?, nothing about the awe-inspiring preservation of God's actual word, or Truth as it actually came down to the KJB translators, etc.] of the 1611 translators. ...?

I can show much more in the entire Preface.

[2]

There are also differing "running changes" of NKJV that they did not tell (notify publicly) of, as for instance:

KJB Zechariah 13:6 ?... What are these wounds in thine hands? ...?

KJB John 20:25 The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.

NKJV [1982 ver.] Zechariah 13:6 ?... What are these wounds in your hands? ...?

NKJV [1994/2011 ver.] Zechariah 13:6 ?... What are these wounds between your arms? ...?

NKJV [1994/2011 ver.] John 20:25 The other disciples therefore said to him, ?We have seen the Lord.? So he said to them, ?Unless I see in His hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and put my hand into His side, I will not believe.?

[3]

The NKJV is bound by copyright:

"... ?The text of the New King James Version ? (NKJV) may be quoted or reprinted without prior written permission with the following qualifications:

(1) up to and including 1,000 verses may be quoted in printed form as long as the verses quoted amount to less than 50% of a complete book of the Bible and make up less than 50% of the total work in which they are quoted;
(2) all NKJV quotations must conform accurately to the NKJV text.

Any use of the NKJV text must include a proper acknowledgment as follows:

Scripture taken from the New King James Version. Copyright ? 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

However, when quotations from the NKJV text are used in church bulletins, orders of service, study lessons, church newsletters, and similar works in the course of religious instruction or services at a place of worship or other religious assembly, the following notice may be used at the end of each quotation: NKJV.

For quotation requests not covered by the above guidelines, write to Thomas Nelson Publishers, Attn: Bible Rights and Permissions, P.O. Box 141000, Nashville, Tennessee 37214-1000.

All Rights reserved.? ..."

They can sue if they so choose, or stop a person from even using it if they desire, and change their stance at any time.

[4]

The NKJV doesn't even use the same mss as the underlying texts as does the King James Bible. I have an entire book, entitled: "When the KJV Departs from the "MAJORITY" Text of Hodge & Farstad, cited by the corrupt NKJV." by Jack Moorman (approx 157 pages). I will cite any portion as needful.

[5]

The NKJV eliminates gender at almost every opportunity, and thus is the most gender exclusive book, and moreso than the 'dreaded' NIV; a small sampling:

[A few OT examples; KJB always first (Esword edition), NKJV second, cited from Biblegateway.com]

Isaiah 5:14 ?Therefore hell hath enlarged herself, and opened her mouth without measure: and their glory, and their multitude, and their pomp, and he that rejoiceth, shall descend into it.?

NKJV Isaiah 5:14: "Therefore Sheol has enlarged itself
And opened its mouth beyond measure;
Their glory and their multitude and their pomp,
And he who is jubilant, shall descend into it."

Ezekiel 31:16 ?I made the nations to shake at the sound of his fall, when I cast him down to hell with them that descend into the pit: and all the trees of Eden, the choice and best of Lebanon, all that drink water, shall be comforted in the nether parts of the earth.?

NKJV Ezekiel 31:16 I made the nations shake at the sound of its fall, when I cast it down to [a]hell together with those who descend into the Pit; and all the trees of Eden, the choice and best of Lebanon, all that drink water, were comforted in the depths of the earth.

Ezekiel 31:17 ?They also went down into hell with him unto them that be slain with the sword; and they that were his arm, that dwelt under his shadow in the midst of the heathen.?

NKJV Ezekiel 31:17 They also went down to hell with it, with those slain by the sword; and those who were its strong arm dwelt in its shadows among the nations.

There are many more.

[A few NT examples, and a whole book of 1 Corinthians]

Acts 16:1 ?Then came he to Derbe and Lystra: and, behold, a certain disciple was there, named Timotheus, the son of a certain woman, which was a Jewess, and believed; but his father was a Greek:?

NKJV Acts 16:1 Then he came to Derbe and Lystra. And behold, a certain disciple was there, named Timothy, the son of a certain Jewish woman who believed, but his father was Greek.

Acts 24:24 ?And after certain days, when Felix came with his wife Drusilla, which was a Jewess, he sent for Paul, and heard him concerning the faith in Christ.?

And after some days, when Felix came with his wife Drusilla, who was Jewish, he sent for Paul and heard him concerning the faith in Christ.

"Jewess" and "Jewish" are not synonymous terms.

1 Corinthians 1:26 ?For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:?

NKJV 1 Corinthians 1:26 For [a]you see your calling, brethren, that not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called.

1 Corinthians 2:4 ?And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of [b]man's
wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:?

NKJV 1 Corinthians 2:4 And my speech and my preaching were not with persuasive words of [a]human wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power,

1 Corinthians 2:11 ?For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.?

NKJV 1 Corinthians 2:11 For what man knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God.

1 Corinthians 2:15 ?But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.?

NKJV 1 Corinthians 2:15 But he who is spiritual judges all things, yet he himself is rightly judged by no one.

1 Corinthians 3:5 ?Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man??

NKJV 1 Corinthians 3:5 Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers through whom you believed, as the Lord gave to each one?

1 Corinthians 3:8 ?Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one: and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour.?

NKJV 1 Corinthians 3:8 Now he who plants and he who waters are one, and each one will receive his own reward according to his own labor.

1 Corinthians 3:10 ?According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon.?

NKJV 1 Corinthians 3:10 According to the grace of God which was given to me, as a wise master builder I have laid the foundation, and another builds on it. But let each one take heed how he builds on it.

1 Corinthians 3:11 ?For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.?

NKJV 1 Corinthians 3:11 For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

1 Corinthians 3:12 ?Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble;?

NKJV 1 Corinthians 3:12 Now if anyone builds on this foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw,

1 Corinthians 3:13 [x2] ?Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is.?

NKJV 1 Corinthians 3:13 [x2] each one?s work will become clear; for the Day will declare it, because it will be revealed by fire; and the fire will test each one?s work, of what sort it is.

1 Corinthians 3:14 ?If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.?

NKJV 1 Corinthians 3:14 If anyone?s work which he has built on it endures, he will receive a reward.

1 Corinthians 3:15 ?If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.?

NKJV 1 Corinthians 3:15 If anyone?s work is burned, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.

1 Corinthians 3:17 ?If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.?

NKJV 1 Corinthians 3:17 If anyone [a]defiles the temple of God, God will destroy him. For the temple of God is holy, which temple you are.

1 Corinthians 3:18 [x 2] ?Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise.?

NKJV 1 Corinthians 3:18 [x2] Let no one deceive himself. If anyone among you seems to be wise in this age, let him become a fool that he may become wise.

1 Corinthians 3:21 ?Therefore let no man glory in men. For all things are yours;?

NKJV 1 Corinthians 3:21 Therefore let no one boast in men. For all things are yours:

That one is even more subtil. Read it carefully. Think like they do for just a moment.


1 Corinthians 4:2 ?Moreover it is required in stewards, that a man be found faithful.?

NKJV 1 Corinthians 4:2 Moreover it is required in stewards that one be found faithful.

1 Corinthians 4:3 ?But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged of you, or of man's judgment: yea, I judge not mine own self.?

NKJV 1 Corinthians 4:3 But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged by you or by a human [a]court. In fact, I do not even judge myself.

1 Corinthians 4:5 ?Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts: and then shall every man have praise of God.?

NKJV 1 Corinthians 4:5 Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord comes, who will both bring to light the hidden things of darkness and reveal the [a]counsels of the hearts. Then each one?s praise will come from God.

1 Corinthians 4:6 ?And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another.?

NKJV 1 Corinthians 4:6 Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively transferred to myself and Apollos for your sakes, that you may learn in us not to think beyond what is written, that none of you may be [a]puffed up on behalf of one against the other.

1 Corinthians 4:14 ?I write not these things to shame you, but as my beloved sons I warn you.?

NKJV 1 Corinthians 4:14 I do not write these things to shame you, but as my beloved children I warn you.

1 Corinthians 5:11 ?But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.?

NKJV 1 Corinthians 5:11 But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner?not even to eat with such a person.

This one is also subtil, as it can be used to now imply that females can be called "brother" in the Masonic use of the scripture in their lodges.

1 Corinthians 7:17 ?But as God hath distributed to every man, as the Lord hath called every one, so let him walk. And so ordain I in all churches.?

NKJV 1 Corinthians 7:17 But as God has distributed to each one, as the Lord has called each one, so let him walk. And so I [a]ordain in all the churches.

1 Corinthians 7:18 ?Is any man called being circumcised? let him not become uncircumcised. Is any called in uncircumcision? let him not be circumcised.?

NKJV 1 Corintihans 7:18 Was anyone called while circumcised? Let him not become uncircumcised. Was anyone called while uncircumcised? Let him not be circumcised.

1 Corinthians 7:36 ?But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin, if she pass the flower of her age, and need so require, let him do what he will, he sinneth not: let them marry.?

NKJV 1 Corinthians 7:36 But if any man thinks he is behaving improperly toward his [a]virgin, if she is past the flower of youth, and thus it must be, let him do what he wishes. He does not sin; let them marry.

1 Corinthians 8:2 ?And if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know.?

NKJV 1 Corinthians 8:2 And if anyone thinks that he knows anything, he knows nothing yet as he ought to know.

1 Corinthians 8:3 ?But if any man love God, the same is known of him.?

NKJV 1 Corinthins 8:3 But if anyone loves God, this one is known by Him.

1 Corinthians 9:15 ?But I have used none of these things: neither have I written these things, that it should be so done unto me: for it were better for me to die, than that any man should make my glorying void.?

NKJV 1 Corinthians 9:15 But I have used none of these things, nor have I written these things that it should be done so to me; for it would be better for me to die than that anyone should make my boasting void.

1 Corinthians 9:25 ?And every man that striveth for the mastery is temperate in all things. Now they do it to obtain a corruptible crown; but we an incorruptible.?

NKJV 1 Corinthians 9:25 And everyone who competes for the prize [a]is temperate in all things. Now they do it to obtain a perishable crown, but we for an imperishable crown.

1 Corinthians 10:24 ?Let no man seek his own, but every man another's wealth.?

NKJV 1 Corinthians 10:24 Let no one seek his own, but each one the other?s well-being.

1 Corinthians 10:28 [x2] ?But if any man say unto you, This is offered in sacrifice unto idols, eat not for his sake that shewed it, and for conscience sake: for the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof:?

NKJV 1 Corinthians 10:28 But if anyone says to you, ?This was offered to idols,? do not eat it for the sake of the one who told you, and for conscience? sake; [a]for ?the earth is the Lord?s, and all its fullness.?

1 Corinthians 11:16 ?But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.?

NKJV 1 Corinthians 11:16 But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God.

1 Corinthians 11:34 ?And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come.?

NKJV 1 Corinthians 11:34 But if anyone is hungry, let him eat at home, lest you come together for judgment. And the rest I will set in order when I come.

1 Corinthians 12:3 [x2] ?Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.?

NKJV 1 Corinthians 12:3 [x2] Therefore I make known to you that no one speaking by the Spirit of God calls Jesus [a]accursed, and no one can say that Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit.

1 Corinthians 12:7 ?But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal.?

NKJV 1 Corinthians 12:7 But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to each one for the profit of all:

1 Corinthians 12:11 ?But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.?

NKJV 1 Corinthians 12:11 But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually as He wills.

1 Corinthians 14:2 ?For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.?

NKJV 1 Corinthians 14:2 For he who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God, for no one understands him; however, in the spirit he speaks mysteries.

1 Corinthians 14:20 ?Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men.?

NKJV 1 Corinthins 14:20 Brethren, do not be children in understanding; however, in malice be babes, but in understanding be mature.

1 Corinthians 15:23 ?But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.?

NKJV 1 Corinthians 15:23 But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ?s at His coming.

1 Corinthians 15:35 ?But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come??

NKJV 1 Corinthians 15:35 But someone will say, ?How are the dead raised up? And with what body do they come??

1 Corinthians 16:11 "Let no man therefore despise him: but conduct him forth in peace, that he may come unto me: for I look for him with the brethren.?

NKJV 1 Corinthians 16:11 Therefore let no one despise him. But send him on his journey in peace, that he may come to me; for I am waiting for him with the brethren.

1 Corinthians 16:22 ?If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maranatha.?

NKJV 1 Corinthians 16:22 If anyone does not love the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be [a]accursed. O Lord, come!

There are many more examples. But think. Is there any prevailing problem in the world and in the churches about gender identity? Is there any problem with disrespect to the fathers of house/home and in society? The NKJV is a gender exclusive (it excludes gender in many many places) boiok, moreso than the NIV. How many of you knew that?

Remember, sow genderlessness and confusion in gender and they will reap wht they have sown, some 30, some 60 and some 100 fold.

Sow NKJV (etc, NIV) per[b]version
, and reap perverts every time.

[6]

The NKJV (along with all modern "versions") claim to update all the archaic words of the KJB, so that we may now "understand" the word of God, and is no longer locked in ancient language, yet, it like all modern "versions" still retain "archaisms" (which they identify):

I do not know of a single Bible that does not use 'dead words', or archaic words, and words that do not mean the same thing as they did when originally given (and that includes the originals, for those 'original only' people), and neither do I know any persons who do not use dead words, or archaic words (even 'rappers' use them) and words that have changed meaning (ie "gay", "dude", "cool", etc).

For instance:

Archaic/dead words? You supposedly mean like these?

[Row 1]

abode kernels ancients laden aright lance asunder lusty away with mantle beckon mattock begotten naught bier nurtured bewitched odious bowels osprey calved pangs celestial phylacteries coney plowshare confections rend convince respite cormorant rushes decked soothsayer deride spoil distill suckling dung temperate effect tetrarch estate trafficked forevermore unto fowl usury girdle vaunt hallowed vestments haunt vex heresies wanton infamy yokefellow inasmuch insatiable jeopardy

[Row 2]

abase deride heresies pipes temperate abated didst hinds plowshare tenons abode distill importune presbytery teraphim adjure doest impotent principalities tetrarch alms dost inasmuch putrefaction thee ancient doth issue raiment thereon apparel dung jeopardy rampart thine aright effect know ravening thou art eminent laden remission thy asunder engines laud rend timbrel away with estate layer reprobate trafficked backbiting evermore lightness requite travail beget familiar litters riot unto beseech feigned lordly rushes usury bewail fetch lunatic seemly vagabond bewitched firstlings lusty seest valor bondwomen fleshhook mail seethe vaunt bowels footmen maintenance shalt venture breeches forbearance mammon sherd verily brimstone fowl mantle shod vermillion calves fuller maranatha shouldst vex canst gaiety mattock shouldest virtue cleave garners milch smith wanton comely gavest mill solace warp constrains girdle nether soothsayer wayfarers cormorant graven nurtured sore whence couches gross odious speakest wherewith covert guile offscouring stay woof crib handmaid pangs strait wrought dainty harrow paramours suckling yea dearth hast perdition swaddling yonder deck haunt phylacteries tares

[Row 3]

abase daubed henceforth principality vestments abode dayspring heresies prognostication vex alms debased immutable psaltery virtue amiss decks impudent quarter visage anise deride inasmuch rampart wanton apparel dispensation issue rid warp aright disquiet jeopardy rifled wayfaring austere distill jot riotous whence away with dung know rushes whereupon backbiters effect laden satiate whet beckoned epistle laud shamefaced winebibber beggarly eventide laver shod woof begot evermore litters smith wrought bemoan familiar lordly soothsayer yea beseech fan lusty spoil yonder bewail feigned mail straits bewitched fetch mammon suckling bittern flanks mantle tares bondwomen flay mattock temperate brimstone footmen mill tenons calves forbearance mite terrestrial carnal foursquare nativity tetrarch celestial fowl offend therein circumspect fuller offscouring timbrel cloven gad omnipotent tittle comeliness godhead or ever unto concourses graven pangs usury confederacy greyhound paramours vagabond convince gross phylacteries valor covert hallowed pipes vehement crib haunts plowshare verity dainties hemlock potentate vermillion


[Row 4]

abase disquieted henceforth ravening abate dissembles hoarfrost remission abode distill impudent rend adjuration dromedaries inasmuch riotous alms dung isles rushes apparel effect know sacrilege assuaged enjoined laden satiate asunder ensign lance seethe augment ensues laud sherd away with estate laver sloth backbiting eventide litters smith beget evermore lusty solace beggarly execration mail soothsayer bemoan familiar maintenance stay beseech firmament mantle straits bewail firstling mattock stripling bewitched flagon milch suppliants bier flay mill surfeit bowels footmen naught swaddling calving forbear noontide temperate cleft foursquare obeisance teraphim clemency fowl oblation thereupon comely fuller odious thrice coneys gad or ever timbrel constrains garner pangs trafficked cormorant goodly paramours unshod covert gross perdition crib guile phylacteries dainty hallowed pipes debased haltingly plowshare decked harrow pound delectable haunt rampart​

None of those are being cited from the King James Bible [though they exist therein].

Row 1 is the NIV 1973.

Row 2 is the NASB [from revised ASV 1901].

Row 3 is the NKJV 1982.

Row 4 is the NRSV 1999 ["milch", that's pronounced 'milk', as in milch kine (milk cow)].

The KJB uses some of the very words as found in all so-called 'modern' versions

What was that argument from 'archaic' ("dead") again? Tell me please ... Do they complain about the archaisms in all modern versions, as I hear this whining about the KJB? Use the same scales (of the sanctuary; Psalms 77:13) to judge, and not imbalanced ones.

[7]

Subtilties upon subtilties in the parentheses:

Joh 10:35? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;?

NKJV John 10:35 ?If He called them gods, [a] to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken),

Did you catch the subtil [KJB Gen. 3:1] change in the NKJV compared to the KJB? Look again. It merely appears the same, but in fact, carries a whole different meaning. Do not see it yet? It's found in the parentheses. This is usually done, in the modern translations, where it does not appear so in the KJB, to indicate to the reader of the NKJV, that a scribe [or someone] penned the words after the fact of the NT Gospel writer and it was simply attributed to Jesus Christ, though they believe He never actually said it Himself, for instance and comparison, turn to the NKJV, Matthew 24:15, which reads:

NKJV Matthew 24:15 [a] ?Therefore when you see the 'abomination of desolation.' spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place [c] (whoever reads, let him understand),

The NKJV indicates, by doing this and not including the words in red (Matthew 24:15), that Jesus never actually said those words in the brackets and are not to be attributed to Him at all, but were added by a scribe at a later period. Now the words in John 10:35 NKJV are in red, but placed in brackets in the NKJV means that they do not believe Jesus said those words, but were added by another scribe into Jesus' mouth.

The KJB does use parentheses, but in a totally different manner, ie. simply to demonstrate an interjecting thought, or bridging thought, always attributed by the immediate writer [never a later scribe], or the one immediately speaking, as for instance:

KJB Matthew 24:15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:)

Do you see the difference? The KJB, teaches that Jesus actually says those words, even as the words of John 10:35.

[b][8]


The subtil addition of words that never were in the underlying mss, like the koine Greek of the NT, such as found in the NKJV Hebrews 9:12, compared tot he King James Bible:

Heb 9:12? Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.?

NKJV Hebrews 9:12 (1982) Not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption.

However, I will include a statement by [the now deceased] "Walter Martin", let me show a few errors he made about what he stated, on tv, even the John Ankerberg "show", in regards Hebrews 9:12, in the Koine Greek:

[John Ankerberg Show, with Walter Martin and William Johnsson [Review and Herald], time index 00:33:16-00:33:57] -

"... [George E. Canon reading the [Koine] Greek New Testament, Hebrews 9:12, in the presence of Walter Martin and others at a selective closed meeting of (so-called) 'scholars'] that Jesus Christ entered once into the holiest of all with his own blood, having obtained eternal redemption for us. ...", and I [Walter Martin] asked the question, and 'Canon' did too [to the present persons meeting], "Did this [event of Hebrews 9:12] take place, as [O.R.L.] Crosier said, as Mrs. [Ellen G.] White said, as the early Adventists taught?? Did it [event of Hebrews 9:12] take place in [AD] 1844, or did it [event of Hebrews 9:12] take place at the ascension of Jesus Christ [AD 31]?"? [Walter Martin continues apart from the past quotation and questions asked then]? The [Koine] Greek text says, at the ascension of Jesus Christ [AD 31].? Once into the holiest of all - the Most Holy Place! ..."

The text:

Hebrews 9:12 KJB - Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.

Hebrews 9:12 GNT TR - ουδε δι αιματος τραγων και μοσχων δια δε του ιδιου αιματος εισηλθεν εφαπαξ εις τα αγια αιωνιαν λυτρωσιν ευραμενος

There is not a single extant mss, codici or papyrii, [etc] written in Koine Greek [or in any language] that reads "αγια αγιων" [or its equivalent in the language selected, the Most Holy Place, see Hebrews 9:3 KJB, GNT TR] here in Hebrews 9:12, but plainly reads in all known extant mss, etc in any language, "τα αγια" [the sanctuary, ie first apartment, the holy place].
?
the Latin [Jerome's Vulgate] reads, "in sancta",

the Wycliffe 1394 reads "the hooli (holy)", - http://oldebible.com/

the Tyndale 1531 reads, "the holy place",

the Coverdale 1535 reads, "the holy palce",

the Matthew's 1537 reads, "the holye place",

the Great Bible 1539 reads, "the holy place",

the German Luther Bibel 1545 reads, "das Heilige" (the Holy),

Stephanus 1550 reads, "τα αγια",

the Genevan Bible 1560 reads, "the holy place"

the Bishop's Bible 1568 reads, "the holy place"

Scrivener's 1894 reads,?"τα αγια",

and even Westcott's and Hort's 1881 reads, "τα αγια".

the UBS 5th reads, "τὰ ἅγια",

the Novum Testamentum Graece 28th [Eberhard Nestle's / Kurt Aland's, etc] reads, "τὰ ἅγια" without a single footnote in either 'scholars' work indicating any deviation from this reading in any known extant mss, etc.]? Consider:

Hebrews 8:2 KJB - A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man.

Hebrews 9:1?KJB - Then verily the first covenant had also ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary.

Hebrews 9:2?KJB - For there was a tabernacle made; the first, wherein was the candlestick, and the table, and the shewbread; which is called the sanctuary.

Hebrews 9:3?KJB - And after the second veil, the tabernacle which is called the Holiest of all;

Hebrews 9:7 KJB - But into the second went the high priest alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people:

Hebrews 9:8?KJB - The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing:

Hebrews 9:24?KJB - For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:

Hebrews 9:25?KJB - Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others;

Hebrews 10:19?KJB - Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,

Hebrews 13:11 KJB - For the bodies of those beasts, whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the high priest for sin, are burned without the camp.

Revelation 15:5?KJB - And after that I looked, and, behold, the temple of the tabernacle of the testimony in heaven was opened:

Seventh-day Adventists, including O.R.L. Crosier [Day Star Extra, February 7th, 1846, you may read in full here - http://text.egwwritings.org/publicationtoc.php?bookCode=SANC&lang=en&collection=15§ion=all ], and especially sister Ellen G. White, do/did not teach, and have never taught, that Hebrews 9:12 happened in AD 1844.? We teach that the event, described in Hebrews 9:12, took place in AD 31, at Christ's Ascension from the Mount of Olives, which parallels Psalms 24:1-10, 133:1-3; Revelation 5:5,6, etc.? We do however teach, that the text of Daniel 7:13, and the events therein, took place in AD 1844, based upon the ending of the 2,300 prophecy of Daniel 8:13,14,26, 9:24-27, 11:31-33,40, 12:7-13; Revelation 9:13-15; 10:1-11, etc.

The Great Controversy 1888 & 1911, page 421 -

"... Thither the faith of Christ's disciples followed him as he ascended from their sight. Here their hopes centered, ?which hope we have,? said Paul, ?as an anchor of the soul, both sure and steadfast, and which entereth into that within the veil; whither the forerunner is for us entered, even Jesus, made an high priest forever.? ?Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.? [Hebrews 6:19, 20; 9:12.]

For eighteen centuries this work of ministration continued in the first apartment of the sanctuary. The blood of Christ, pleaded in behalf of penitent believers, secured their pardon and acceptance with the Father, yet their sins still remained upon the books of record. As in the typical service there was a work of atonement at the close of the year, so before Christ's work for the redemption of men is completed, there is a work of atonement for the removal of sin from the sanctuary. This is the service which began when the 2300 days ended. At that time, as foretold by Daniel the prophet, our High Priest entered the most holy, to perform the last division of his solemn work,?to cleanse the sanctuary. ..." - http://text.egwwritings.org/publica...&collection=2§ion=all&pagenumber=421

The Desire of Ages, page 166 -

"... The sacrificial service that had pointed to Christ passed away; but the eyes of men were turned to the true sacrifice for the sins of the world. The earthly priesthood ceased; but we look to Jesus, the minister of the new covenant, and ?to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.? ?The way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing: ... but Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, ... by His own blood He entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.? Hebrews 12:24; 9:8-12. ..." - http://text.egwwritings.org/publica...&collection=2§ion=all&pagenumber=166

Walter Martin [and associates, including John Ankerberg] was/and still are dead wrong, on both counts, and even the (so-called) LXX in Exodus 26:33 disagrees with him [them].

Exodus 26:33 KJB - And thou shalt hang up the vail under the taches, that thou mayest bring in thither within the vail the ark of the testimony: and the vail shall divide unto you between the holy place and the most holy.

Exodus 26:33 (so-called) LXX

The "holy place" is separate [by a second "vail" from and not the same as the "most holy".

The Greek translated "Holy Place" is ta hagia, meaning 'holy places." The reference is to the heavenly sanctuary as a whole. In the Greek Old Testament, the Septuagint (LXX), the singular or plural of hagios, ia, on often refers to the sanctuary as a whole, including both the Holy and Most Holy apartments. For example, see in the Septuagint Exod. 36:1, 3, 4; Lev. 5:15; 10:4; 27:3; Num 3:31, 32; 4:12, 16; 7:9; 18:5.? Thus the word in general simply means entering into the Sanctuary through the First, or Outer, Veil from the Courtyard.

The NKJV adds a word "Most" where no mss evidence has ever been found to support it, and doesn't even have the integrity to place the word in italics or brackets. This NKJV undermines the Seventh-day Adventist position like no other "version" has ever done. It is a wolf in sheeps clothing.

[9]

The "righteousness which is of faith" (doing right, victory over sin in/through Christ), vs "righteousness of faith" (Lord Lord, and not doing, living in sin while claiming Christ):

Rom 10:6? But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down from above:)?

NKJV Romans 10:6 But the righteousness of faith speaks in this way, ?Do not say in your heart, ?Who will ascend into heaven?? ? (that is, to bring Christ down from above)

The King James says in Romans 10:6 that there is a "righteousness" (right doing/living) that comes through the Faith of Jesus, and we can live as He lived on this earth, in the same likeness of sinful (fallen) flesh as He had, and yet have victory over all of it through the Holy Ghost, being born again, born of Heaven.

The NKJV says that "faith" is righteousness itself without doing anything at all. It does this throughout:

Rom 3:22? Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:?

NKJV Romans 3:22 even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all [a]and on all who believe. For there is no difference;

The King James says "the faith of Jesus" will cause us to be victorious and to live as He lived on this earth without sinning.

The NKJV says that faith merely "in" Jesus (He does everything, and we do nothing but 'believe') gets us to Heaven without victory over our sins.

So much for the Righteousness by Faith of Jesus Christ (1888) messages. If the NKJV is right, Seventh-day Adventism, in verity, along with Ellen G White, Waggoner and Jones (etal.) at that time, were all wrong. Do you (reader) believe that? I do not.

[10]

Course correction:

The NKJV, differs from the KJB, in the NT [alone] in 2289 places, in some versions.

- Christ is removed in the NT in the NKJV ? 1

- Lord is removed in the NT in the NKJV ? 66

- Jesus is removed in the NT in the NKJV ? 2

- God is removed in the NT in the NKJV ? 51

- Godhead is removed in the NT in the NKJV ? 1

- devil(s) is removed in the NT in the NKJV ? 81

- hell is changed/removed in the NKJV OT 14x and in the NKJV NT 10x for a total of 24x

The word ?hell? as found in the King James Bible, is found in: 54 verses, 54 matches, e-sword

KJB OT [31x]: Deuteronomy 32:22; 2 Samuel 22:6; Job 11:8, 26:6; Psalms 9:17, 16:10, 18:5, 55:15, 86:13, 116:13, 139:8; Proverbs 5:5, 7:27, 9:18, 15:11,24, 23:14, 27:20; Isaiah 5:14, 14:9,15, 28:15,18, 57:9; Ezekiel 31:16,17, 32:21,27; Amos 9:2; Jonah 2:2; Habakkuk 2:5.

KJB NT [23x]: Matthew 5:22,29,30, 10:28, 11:23, 16:18, 18:9, 23:15,33; Mark 9:43,45,47; Luke 10:15, 12:5, 16:23; Acts 2:27,31; James 3:6; 2 Peter 2:4; Revelation 1:18, 6:8, 20;13,14.

The English word ?hell? is retained in the NKJV only in the following verses, generally with a footnote attached [exceptions, are Ezekiel 31:17, 32:21,27; Matthew 5:29,30; Luke 12:5, which are without an altering footnote], stating, ?Or Sheol?, or ?Abode of the dead?, ?Gr. Gehenna?, and in the single instance in 2 Peter 2:4's footnote, ?Lit. Tartarus?, and in the single instance of Revelation 1:18's footnote, ?Lit. Unseen; the unseen realm? and/or capitalizing the various words, personifying it [along with the word ?Destruction?, ?Pit?, and ?Death?], possibly even deifying it [them], as such capitalization in the NKJV, is normally used to denote deity, see NKJV Preface, page iv, Section ?The Style?, paragraph 5; and while some passages in the NKJV NT, simply transliterate the underlying Greek word, and leave no footnote at all [ie., NKJV Matthew 11:23, 16:18; Luke 16:23; Acts 2:27,31; Revelation 6:8, 20:13,14 ?Hades?]:

NKJV OT [17x]: Deuteronomy 32:22; Psalms 9:17, 55:15, 139:8; Proverbs 5:5, 7:27, 9:18, 15:11,24, 23:14, 27:20; Ezekiel 31:16,17, 32:21,27; Amos 9:2; Habakkuk 2:5

NKJV OT [17x], compared to KJB OT [31x] [removed 14x]: 2 Samuel 22:6; Job 11:8, 26:6; Psalms 16:10, 18:5, 86:13, 116:13; Isaiah 5:14, 14:9,15, 28:15,18, 57:9; Jonah 2:2.

NKJV NT [13x]: Matthew 5:22,29,30, 10:28, 18:9, 23:15,33; Mark 9:43,45,47; Luke 12:5; James 3:6; 2 Peter 2:4

NKJV NT [13x], compared to KJB NT [23x] [removed 10x]: Matthew 11:23, 16:18; Luke 10:15, 16:23; Acts 2:27,31; Revelation 1:18, 6:8, 20:13,14

- heaven is removed in the NT in the NKJV ? 50

- damned (-able, -ation) is removed/changed in the NKJV NT a total of 15x (totally removed)

- blood is removed in the NT in the NKJV ? 23

- salvation is removed in the NT in the NKJV ? 2

- Word of God is removed in the NT in the NKJV ? 1

- Word of the Lord is added in the NT in the NKJV ? 4

- The phrase ?New Testament? is gone, though the NKJV, does use the words ?testament? and ?testator? in association with ?covenant?, see Hebrews 9:16-17 for example. Yet, there are also footnotes in the NKJV, referring to the NU [alexandrian] texts, which even remove the word ?new?, see Matthew 26:28; Mark 14:24.

- "JEHOVAH", the very name of God, is gone from the text of the NKJV. There are at least 7 footnotes (NKJV Genesis 22:14; Exodus 6:3, 17:15; Judges 6:24; Psalms 83:18; Isaiah 12:2, 26:4 NKJV), but in those footnotes, there is also a little doubt placed about "YHWH", saying "traditionally Jehovah" (Ex. 6:3 footnote NKJV).

I have all of the references.
Posted By: Matthew 10vs8

Re: Bible Doctrines affected by Modern Versions - 07/03/21 04:00 AM

Originally Posted by Rick H
Here is part of the comparison on the KJV vs NKJV...

"New King James Version Omissions
NKJV omits the word "Lord" 66 times
NKJV omits the word "God" 51 times
NKJV omits the word "heaven" 50 times
NKJV omits the word "repent" 44 times
NKJV omits the word "blood" 23 times
NKJV omits the word "hell" 22 times
NKJV omits the word "JEHOVAH" entirely
NKJV omits the word "new testament" entirely
NKJV omits the word "damnation" entirely
NKJV omits the word "devils" entirely
NKJV ignored the KJV Greek Textus Receptus over 1200 times
NKJV replaced the KJV Hebrew (ben Chayyim) with the corrupt Stuttgart edition (ben Asher) Old Testament

NKJV Demotes Jesus Christ
NKJV -KJV
Luke 13:8 Sir -Lord
Matthew 18:26 before him saying, Master -and worshipped him saying, Lord
Matthew 20:20 kneeling down -worshipping him
Matthew 26:64 right hand of the Power -right hand of power
Genesis 22:8 God will provide for himself the lamb -God will provide himself a lamb
John 8:35 a son -the Son
Colossians 2:2 the mystery of God, both of the Father and of Christ -the mystery of God, and of the Father, and of Christ (Trinity)
Matthew 8:19 et al. Teacher -Master
Matthew 19:16 Good Teacher -Good Master
Matthew 22:16 Teacher -Master
Matthew 23:8 One is your Teacher, the Christ -one is your Master, even Christ
Matthew 23:10 And do not be called teachers, for One is your Teacher, the Christ -Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ..."

https://www.angelfire.com/la2/prophet1/NKJVOmissions.html
A lot worse continued:

[11]

The NKJV (avg. 6.9th grade) is harder (more difficult) to read than the King James (avg. 5.8th grade by Flesch-Kinkade):

The Flesch-Kinkaid Grade Level formula, as tested on various English translations:

?... [Page 195] The King James Bible ranks easier to read in 23 out of 26 comparisons. (Their formula is: (.39 x average number of [Page 195-196] words per sentence) + (11.8 x average number of syllables per word) ? (15.59) = grade level. ...? - New Age Bible Versions, An Exhaustive Documentation Exposing The Message, Men and Manuscripts Moving Mankind To The Antichrist's One World Religion, The New Case Against, The NIV, NASB, NKJV, ESV, HCSB, NRSV, NAB, NET, CEV, GNB, CEB, Living, The Message, New Jerusalem, & New Century, The Latest Research Supporting The Authorized King James Version, by Gail Riplinger, Chapter Eleven, King James For Kids, Page 195-196

The NKJV, also uses more difficult and complex words, in the place of more simple words as found in the King James Bible (due to copyright and other machinations), and in some instances, do not mean the same thing, and are therefore not synonyms. For instance, [non-exhaustive overall sampling, and the following words/phrases in the NKJV are never used in the King James Bible]

For intance:

Genesis 9:9

KJB

seed
4 (letters)
1 (syllable)

NKJV

descendants*
11 (letters)
3 (syllable)

* note on the NKJV word ?descendants?, is a plural word, whereas contextually in the King James Bible, especially when dealing with prophetic references to Jesus Christ, the King James Bible uses the singular word ?seed?; for instance: Genesis 3:15; Galatians 3:16; Romans 9:29; Revelation 12:17, of which the NKJV alters. Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit Himself, referring back to an OT texts [Gen. 12:7, 15:18], makes an entire doctrinal argument from this very truth in Galatians 3:16 [KJB], and John, under the same inspiration of God, also refers back to OT texts [Gen. 3:15; Gal. 3:16] in Revelation 12:17 speaking of the singular person, Jesus Christ.

One will also notice, that in the NKJV, there are many more untranslated words, which are left transliterated [English spelling of foreign words], such as, Sheol, Hades, Areopagus, etc.

Therefore, the claim, that the New King James Version [or any other English translation] is easier to read or understand, when compared to the King James Bible, is demonstrably incorrect.

Sometimes, the King James Bible, in various comparisons of texts and words, will indeed have a more lengthy use of words, or more syllables when compared to other English translations, but will generally have an easier understood meaning at simple reading, for instance [non-exhaustive sampling, and the following words in the NKJV are never used in the King James Bible]:

1 Samuel 10:19

KJB

thousands
9 (letters)
2 (syllable)

NKJV

clans*
5 (letters)
1 (syllable)

* note on the word NKJV ?clans?, this is also a hidden reductionism by the NKJV translators, because of their 'critical' [historical] belief that ancient/early Israel was very small in numbers, ie, 10's-100's, per tribe, maybe a thousand here or there, but never 1,000's [upper] to 10,000's and definitely not into the 100,000's to 1,000,000's overall. So it uses a smaller word to obscure the truth.

[12]

According to the Preface, page iv & x, of the NKJV, we read:

?... [page iv] Additionally, capitalization of these pronouns benefits the reader by clearly distinguishing divine and human persons referred to in a passage. Without such capitalizations the distinction is often obscure, because the antecedent of a pronoun is not always clear in the English translation. ...?

?... [page x] PERSONAL PRONOUNS and certain nouns are capitalized when they refer to Deity. ...?

2 Thessalonians 2:7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.

NKJV 2 Thessalonians 2:7 For the [a]mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only [b]He who now restrains will do so until He is taken out of the way.

The NKJV by capitalizing the "He" in both places in 2 Thessalonians 2:7 just negated the Papacy being the one to be removed by Christ at His second Advent, and instead makes it the Holy Ghost being removed. A complete reversal of meaning.

Ellen G. White states that the ?let? was Pagan Rome, and the ?Mystery of Iniquity? was indeed, Papal Rome, please notice that she did not say that the ?daily? of Daniel was ?Pagan Rome/Paganism? which was to be ?taken out of the way? in 2 Thessalonians 2:7. Instead, notice, whom she declares is to be removed [?taken away?] and when it was to occur and by whom it was to occur:

?... The mystery of iniquity, which had already begun to work in Paul?s day, will continue its work until it be taken out of the way at our Lord?s second coming. The climax of the working of iniquity will soon be reached. When the land which the Lord provided as an asylum for his people, that they might worship him according to the dictates of their own consciences, the land over which for long years the shield of Omnipotence has been spread, the land which God has favored by making it the depository of the pure religion of Christ,?when that land shall, through its legislators, abjure the principles of Protestantism, and give countenance to Romish apostasy in tampering with God?s law,?it is then that the final work of the man of sin will be revealed. Protestants will throw their whole influence and strength on the side of the Papacy; by a national act enforcing the false Sabbath, they will give life and vigor to the corrupt faith of Rome, reviving her tyranny and oppression of conscience. Then it will be time for God to work in mighty power for the vindication of his truth. ...? [The Signs Of The Times; June 12, 1893, ?Build The Old Waste Places?, by Ellen G. White] - http://text.egwwritings.org/publica...&year=1893&month=June&day=12

It is the ?mystery of iniquity? which is to be ?taken out of the way? at Christ's Second Advent. Thus William Miller, Stephen N. Haskell, Josiah Litch, Joshua V. Himes, Uriah Smith and others are/were incorrect in their point of the ?paganism? being the ?daily?, by incorrectly aligning 2 Thessalonians 2:7's ?taken out of the way?, with the ?taken away? of ?the daily? of Daniel 8, 11, & 12.

Ellen G. White, clearly understood the ?mystery of Iniquity? to be also ?the man of sin?, which is the ?the son of perdition?, the ?Papacy?, that ?Wicked? and ?great Apostasy?:

? ? The apostle Paul warned the church not to look for the coming of Christ in his day. ?That day shall not come,? he says, ?except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed.? 2 Thessalonians 2:3. Not till after the great apostasy, and the long period of the reign of the ?man of sin,? can we look for the advent of our Lord. The ?man of sin,? which is also styled ?the mystery of iniquity,? ?the son of perdition,? and ?that wicked,? represents the papacy, which, as foretold in prophecy, was to maintain its supremacy for 1260 years. This period ended in 1798. The coming of Christ could not take place before that time. Paul covers with his caution the whole of the Christian dispensation down to the year 1798. It is this side of that time that the message of Christ?s second coming is to be proclaimed. ...? [The Great Controversy, by Ellen G. White; Page 356] - http://text.egwwritings.org/publica...niquity+man+of+sin+papacy&resultId=5

?... What was the origin of the great apostasy? How did the church first depart from the simplicity of the gospel? By conforming to the practices of paganism, to facilitate the acceptance of Christianity by the heathen. The apostle Paul declared, even in his day, ?The mystery of iniquity doth already work.? 2 Thessalonians 2:7. During the lives of the apostles the church remained comparatively pure. But ?toward the latter end of the second century most of the churches assumed a new form; the first simplicity [Page 384-385] disappeared, and insensibly, as the old disciples retired to their graves, their children, along with new converts, ... came forward and new-modeled the cause.??Robert Robinson, Ecclesiastical Researches, ch. 6, par. 17, p. 51. To secure converts, the exalted standard of the Christian faith was lowered, and as the result ?a pagan flood, flowing into the church, carried with it its customs, practices, and idols.??Gavazzi, Lectures, page 278. As the Christian religion secured the favor and support of secular rulers, it was nominally accepted by multitudes; but while in appearance Christians, many ?remained in substance pagans, especially worshiping in secret their idols.??Ibid., page 278.

Has not the same process been repeated in nearly every church calling itself Protestant? As the founders, those who possessed the true spirit of reform, pass away, their descendants come forward and ?new-model the cause.? While blindly clinging to the creed of their fathers and refusing to accept any truth in advance of what they saw, the children of the reformers depart widely from their example of humility, self-denial, and renunciation of the world. Thus ?the first simplicity disappears.? A worldly flood, flowing into the church, carries ?with it its customs, practices, and idols.? ...? [The Great Controversy; by Ellen G. White, Pages 384-385; internal page notation in brackets added by myself] - http://text.egwwritings.org/publica...ion=2&section=all&pagenumber=384

2 Thessalonians 2:7, historical quotations:

?...Again, in the second epistle he addresses them with even greater earnestness: Now I beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto Him, that you be not soon shaken in mind, nor be troubled, either by spirit, or by word, that is, the word of false prophets, or by letter, that is, the letter of false apostles, as if from us, as that the day of the Lord is at hand. Let no man deceive you by any means. For that day shall not come, unless indeed there first come a falling away, he means indeed of this present empire, and that man of sin be revealed, that is to say, Antichrist, the son of perdition, who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or religion; so that he sits in the temple of God, affirming that he is God. Do you not remember, that when I was with you, I used to tell you these things? And now you know what detains, that he might be revealed in his time. For the mystery of iniquity does already work; only he who now hinders must hinder, until he be taken out of the way. 2 Thessalonians 2:1-7 What obstacle is there but the Roman state, the falling away of which, by being scattered into ten kingdoms, shall introduce Antichrist ...? [Roman Catholic Online Fathers Of The Church; On The Resurrection Of The Flesh (Tertullian); ?Chapter 24. Other Passages Quoted from St. Paul, Which Categorically Assert the Resurrection of the Flesh at the Final Judgment.?] - http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0316.htm

?... One may naturally enquire, what is that which withholds, and after that would know, why Paul expresses it so obscurely. What then is it that withholds, that is, hinders him from being revealed? Some indeed say, the grace of the Spirit, but others the Roman empire, to whom I most of all accede. Wherefore? Because if he meant to say the Spirit, he would not have spoken obscurely, but plainly, that even now the grace of the Spirit, that is the gifts, withhold him. And otherwise he ought now to have come, if he was about to come when the gifts ceased; for they have long since ceased. But because he said this of the Roman empire, he naturally glanced at it, and speaks covertly and darkly. For he did not wish to bring upon himself superfluous enmities, and useless dangers. For if he had said that after a little while the Roman empire would be dissolved, they would immediately have even overwhelmed him, as a pestilent person, and all the faithful, as living and warring to this end. And he did not say that it will be quickly, although he is always saying it? but what? ?that he may be revealed in his own season,?... But he did not also wish to point him out plainly: and this not from cowardice, but instructing us not to bring upon ourselves unnecessary enmities, when there is nothing to call for it. So indeed he also says here. ?Only there is one that restrains now, until he be taken out of the way?, that is, when the Roman empire is taken out of the way, then he shall come. And naturally. For as long as the fear of this empire lasts, no one will willingly exalt himself, but when that is dissolved, he will attack the anarchy, and endeavor to seize upon the government both of man and of God. For as the kingdoms before this were destroyed, for example, that of the Medes by the Babylonians, that of the Babylonians by the Persians, that of the Persians by the Macedonians, that of the Macedonians by the Romans: ? And these things Daniel delivered to us with great clearness.? [Roman Catholic Online Fathers Of The Church; Homilies On Second Thessalonians (Chrysostom); Homily 4] - http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/23054.htm

?...The impediment is the Roman Empire; the main event impeded is the "man of sin" (most Latin Fathers and later interpreters) ...? [Roman Catholic Online Encyclopedia; ?A?; Antichrist; In The Pauline Epistles; [second option of 4 listed]] - http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01559a.htm

?...I will nevertheless mention such conjectures as I have heard or read.
Some think that the Apostle Paul referred to the Roman empire, and that he was unwilling to use language more explicit, lest he should incur the calumnious charge of wishing ill to the empire which it was hoped would be eternal; ? However, it is not absurd to believe that these words of the apostle, ?Only he who now holds, let him hold until he be taken out of the way,? refer to the Roman empire, as if it were said, ?Only he who now reigns, let him reign until he be taken out of the way.? ?And then shall the wicked be revealed:? no one doubts that this means Antichrist. ...? [Roman Catholic Online Fathers Of The Church; The City of God (Book XX); (St. Agustine); Concerning the last judgment, and the declarations regarding it in the old and new testaments.; Chapter 19.? What the Apostle Paul Wrote to the Thessalonians About the Manifestation of Antichrist Which Shall Precede the Day of the Lord.] - http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/120120.htm


?... I have observed on the Apostle's statement that the Thessalonian Christians knew what the hindrance was that prevented this Man of Sin's development: and we have the consenting testimony of the early Fathers, from Irenaeus, the disciple of the disciple of St John, down to Chrysostom and Jerome, to the effect that it was the Imperial power ruling and residing at Rome. 2 And assuming this to be correct, which we have indeed good reason to do, (for how could so extraordinary a point of knowledge, once received from the apostle have become lost in the age immediately succeeding?) the following striking similarities between this Antichristian power and the Little Horn of Daniel, or its equivalent the Apocalyptic Wild Beast from the abyss and sea, will at once present themselves. ...? - [Hor? Apocalyptic?: OR A COMMENTARY ON THE APOCALYPSE CRITICAL AND HISTORICAL INCLUDING ALSO AN EXAMINATION OF THE CHIEF PROPHECIES OF DANIEL ILLUSTRATED BY AN APOCALYPTIC CHART AND ENGRAVINGS FROM MEDALS AND OTHER EXTANT MONUMENTS OF ANTIQUITY BY THE REV EB ELLIOTT AM LATB VICAR OF TUXFORD AND FELLOW OF TRINITY COLLEGE CAMBRIDGE RORM APOCALYPTIC, by the Rev. Edward. B. Elliott A.M.; Page 85] - http://books.google.com/books?id=1lsGAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

?? 5. The Fathers held that the Roman empire was the "let," or hindrance, referred to by Paul in 2 Thessalonians, which kept back the manifestation of the "man of sin." This point is of great importance. Paul distinctly tells us that he knew, and that the Thessalonians knew, what that hindrance was, and that it was then in existence. The early Church, through the writings of the Fathers, tells us what it knew upon the subject, and with remarkable unanimity affirms that this "let," or hindrance, was the Roman empire as governed by the Caesars; that while the Caesars held imperial power, it was impossible for the predicted antichrist to arise, and that on the fall of the Caesars he would arise. Here we have a point on which Paul affirms the existence of knowledge in the Christian Church. The early Church knew, he says, what this hindrance was. The early Church tells us what it did know upon the subject, and no one in these days can be in a position to contradict its testimony as to what Paul had, by word of mouth only, told the Thessalonians. It is a point on which ancient tradition alone can have any authority. Modern speculation is positively impertinent on such a subject.4 ? From Irenaeus, who lived close to apostolic times, down to Chrysostom and Jerome, the Fathers taught that the power withholding the manifestation of the "man of sin" was the Roman empire as governed by the Caesars. The Fathers therefore belong to the historic, and not to the futurist school of interpretation; for futurists imagine that the hindrance to the manifestation of the man of sin is still in existence, though the Caesars have long since passed away. ...? [Romanism and the Reformation; H. Grattan Guiness; Pg 52-53; or Page 107 (1887) Ed.] - http://www.whitehorsemedia.com/docs/ROMANISM_AND_THE_REFORMATION.pdf

Now compare capitalization that removes Christ and His word from being the "rock". Remember the NKJV preface:

According to the Preface, page iv & x, of the NKJV, we read:

?... [page iv] Additionally, capitalization of these pronouns benefits the reader by clearly distinguishing divine and human persons referred to in a passage. Without such capitalizations the distinction is often obscure, because the antecedent of a pronoun is not always clear in the English translation. ...?

?... [page x] PERSONAL PRONOUNS and certain nouns are capitalized when they refer to Deity. ...?

Matthew 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

NKJV Matthew 16:18 And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not [a]prevail against it.

The NKJV footnote reads: ?[b] [Eph. 2:20]?

NKJV Ephesians 2:20 having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone,

Which is a Roman Catholic argument, stating that the rock (why they left it lowercase, they do not believe the rock in Matthew 16:18 is Christ nor His word) is really one of the apostles, Peter.

Consider the NKJV Preface remarks, in that when the editors capitalize ?personal pronouns? and ?certain nouns?, they refer to Deity. Yet, notice in this instance, that the editors deliberately refused to capitalize the word ?rock?, thus making the reference of it to [sinful humanity] Peter, and not to [Deity] Jesus Christ. The footnote at ?[b]?, even further misleads the reader to consider that the church must be built upon Peter [the ?rock?], at the very least. This is a specific Roman Catholic alteration. Yet, scripture [KJB] identifies the ?Rock? as God Himself, even Jesus Christ throughout, as well does Peter, in [KJB] 1 Peter 2:6,7,8 [even the same word used in v.8, citing [KJB] Isaiah 8:14, in regards Jesus Christ, identified in [KJB] Isaiah 8:13, ?... the LORD of hosts himself ...?]. See * below. See also Paul in [KJB] Romans 9:33; 1 Corinthians 10:4, and Jesus in [KJB] Matthew 7:24,25; Luke 6:47,48, ?... these sayings of mine ? rock.? and ?... to me ? my sayings ? rock.? See also the contextual identification.

Deuteronomy 32:31 For their rock [is] not as our Rock, even our enemies themselves [being] judges.

There are many more subtil differences, to be demonstrated upon request. There are Italic changes (adds and removals). There are Phrase changes (adds and removals). There is slavery added to the NKJV, and instead of being Servants of God/Christ, we are now reduced to slaves. The God of Love does not own slaves. They purposefully mistranslate and abuse the word 'doulos'. There are many footnotes which place doubt upon the text, and many footnotes which refer the reader to the NU text (Alexandrian texts of Romanism, Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, etc) as being superior. All may be demonstrated upon request. The NKJV transliterates words in part when it suits their doctrines, like "Sheol", but doesn't do the same for "Heaven/s" (Shamayim, Ouranos, etc).

There is more. A lot more.
Posted By: Matthew 10vs8

Re: Bible Doctrines affected by Modern Versions - 07/03/21 04:21 AM

Originally Posted by Rick H
Here is part of the comparison on the KJV vs NKJV...
...
NKJV replaced the KJV Hebrew (ben Chayyim) with the corrupt Stuttgart edition (ben Asher) Old Testament ...
The sources they (NKJV translators, notes writers, scholars) constantly refer to herein:

[1] the corrupt Alexandrian Codices, Aleph [Sinaiticus], B [Vaticanus], A [Alexandrinus], C [Ephraemi Syrus], D [Bezae in the Gospel and Acts, Claromontanus in the Epistles], etc, [see Preface page ?v?],

as well as:

[2] from the source such as the Ben Asher text [Gerhard Kittel [whose father was Rudolph Kittel], was Hitler's propaganidst 'high priest', who wrote: Die Judenfrage [1934]] Biblia Hebraica [BHK] of 1937, or the German Stuttgart edition, from the singular Leningrad [?L?] Manuscript B19a [ben Asher text], which differs from the KJB, Ben Chayyim/Bomberg texts] of the OT, in as much as 20,000 to 30,000 places, [see Preface page ?v?], and is therefore not the same as the [1st edition] Daniel Bomberg edition [1516-1517], aka the First Rabbinic Bible, or the [2nd edition] [1524-1525] which was edited by Abraham [Jacob???] ben Chayyim [ben Hayyim] iben Adonijah [Ben Chayyim edition, or Ben Chayyim Masoretic text], aka The Second Great Rabbinic Bible, which was the standard for 400 years, and the foundation of the OT for the King James Bible. In Kittel's first two editions [1906, 1912], he had used the Ben Chayyim Masoretic, but in a 3rd edition [1937, by Paul Kahle], it diverged to the Ben Asher Masoretic text, the MS B19a or ?L? text.

along with:

[3] a NT singular collation of about 414 mss of Hermann von Soden [[so-called 'M'; masquerading as 'Majority text', out of a total 88 papyri, 274 uncials, 2,700 cursives, 2,143 lectionaries, or ?the vast field of Patristic and Versional evidence.?, a mere 8% of the Greek sources, and of which he selected for those closely allied to the Alexandrian], which were skewed towards the Alexandrian, and palmed off as the 'Majority text' to the unsuspecting], [see Preface page ?v?],

as well as:

[4] the so-called LXX [Septuagint], which is nothing but the continued platonic gnostic work of Origen in his Hexapla [late 2nd Century AD] passed off as the work of [unknown] Jews in pre-christian times, when it is easily documented as nothing of the sort], [see Preface page ?v?], There really is not such thing as the "LXX". It's a fabricated myth.

'Taint no such thing as "the Septuagint". ?What you are actually referring to is Origen's Hexapla (Catholic).

The so called "Septuagint", really being "septuaginta (plural, with differing translations)" of Origen's Hexapla, Theodotion (6th column), Aquila of Sinope, & Symmachus and really from the sources Vaticanus and Sinaiticus (both of which are not anywhere near 4th C.).
The Septuagint [LXX] as we presently know it, appears first in the writings of Origen [Hexapla] at near the end of the 2nd century AD, and the mention by the so-called "Letter of Aristeas", based on an unfounded and mostly discredited "legend", is seriously problematic.

"... Most of these fables focus on an infamous ?book? 14 called the ?Letter of Aristeas? 15 (hereafter called the Letter) and the alleged claims of the Letter?s documentation by authors who wrote before the first coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and in the first few centuries following His first sojourn on earth. 16 The only extant Letter is dated from the eleventh century. In addition, there is no pre-Christian Greek translation of the He-brew Old Testament text, which the Letter alleges, that has been found, in-cluding the texts among the Dead Sea Scrolls. ..." - http://www.theoldpathspublications.com/Downloads/Free/The Septuagint ebook.pdf

"... the story of Aristeas appears comparatively rational. Yet it has long been recognized that much of it is unhistorical, in particular the professed date and nationality of the writer. Its claims to authenticity were demolished by Dr. Hody two centuries ago (De bibliorum textibus originalibus, Oxon., 1705) ..." - http://www.bible-researcher.com/isbelxx01.html

De bibliorum textibus originalibus - https://archive.org/stream/bub_gb_Lq6h8A9RvfwC#page/n15/mode/2up

Other sources, identifying the same - http://www.scionofzion.com/septuagint.htm https://www.scionofzion.com/septuagint2.htm

"... Roman Catholics use the idea that Christ quoted the Septuagint to justly include the Apocrypha in their Bibles. ... Since no Hebrew Old Testament ever included the books of the Apocrypha, the Septuagint is the only source the Catholics have for justifying their canon. Many Reformers and Lutherans wrote at great length refuting the validity of the Septuagint. ..." - http://www.wcbible.org/documents/septuagint.pdf

"... [Page 46] Proponents of the invisible LXX will try to claim that Origen didn't translate the Hebrew into Greek, but only copied the LXX into the second column of his Hexapla. Can this argument be correct? No. If it were, then that would mean that those astute 72 Jewish scholars added the Apocryphal books to their work before they were ever written. (!) Or else, Origen took the liberty to add these spurious writings to God's Holy Word (Rev. 22:18). ...

... Is there ANY Greek manuscript of the Old Testament written BEFORE the time of Christ? Yes. There is one minute scrap dated at 150 BC, the Ryland's Papyrus, #458. It contains Deuteronomy chapters 23-28. No more. No less. If fact, it may be the existence of this fragment that led Eucebius and Philo to assume that the entire Pentatuech had been translated by some scribe in an effort to interest Gentiles in the history of the Jews. ... [page 46]

... [Page 47] If there was an Aristeas, he was faced with two insurmountable problems.

First, how did he ever locate the twelve tribes in order to pick his six representative scholars from each. Having been thoroughly scattered by their many defeats and captivities, the tribal lines of the 12 tribes had long since dissolved into virtual non-existence. It was impossible for anyone to distinctly identify the 12 individual tribes.

Secondly, if the 12 tribes had been identified, they would not have undertaken such a translation for two compelling reasons.

(1) Every Jew knew that the official caretaker of Scripture was the tribe of Levi as evidenced in Deuteronomy 17:18, 31:25,26 and Malachi 2:7. Thus, NO Jew of any of the eleven other tribes would dare to join such a forbidden enterprise. ..." - The Answer Book, By Sam Gipp, Page 46-47, selected portions, emphasis [bold] in original.

See also The Mythological Septuagint - https://ia801900.us.archive.org/13/...0-%20The%20Mythological%20Septuagint.pdf

See also The Christians Handbook of Manuscript Evidence - https://archive.org/download/peter-...andbook%20of%20Manuscript%20Evidence.pdf

1 Jones, The Septuagint: A Critical Analysis, op. cit., pp. 10?54. The reader should, in all fairness, be apprised of the fact that very nearly all references in the literature which allude to the Septuagint in fact pertain to Origen's 5th column. That is, the real LXX from all citation evidence as to N.T. references ? indeed, for all practical purposes ? the Septuagint that we actually "see" and "use" is found to actually be only two manuscripts, Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus a. This is especially true of Vaticanus. Although this fact is difficult to ferret out from among the vast amount of literature on the subject, it may be
verified by numerous sources. Among them, the reader is directed to page 1259 in The New Bible Dictionary op. cit., (Texts-Versions) where D.W. Gooding admits this when he relates that the LXX of Jer.38:40 (Jer.31:40 in the MT) as shown in figure 214 has been taken from the Codex Sinaiticus. Thomas Hartwell Horne is even more direct in An Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures, 9th ed., Vol. II, (London, Eng.: Spottiswoode and Shaw, 1846), fn. 1. p. 282 and fn. 3 p. 288. It has been established that both were produced from Origen's 5th column. Thus, the Septuagint which we actually utilize in practical outworking, the LXX which is cited almost ninety
percent of the time, is actually the LXX that was written more than 250 years after the completion of the New Testament canon ? and by a "Catholicized Jehovah's Witness" at that! Moreover, it must be seen that the testimony of these two corrupted manuscripts is almost solely responsible for the errors being foisted upon the Holy Scriptures in both Testaments by modern critics! - Footnote 1, Which Version?, by Floyd Nolen Jones, 20th edition page 129 [PDF] - https://ia601901.us.archive.org/9/i...20Which%20Version%20Is%20The%20Bible.pdf

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBFXozZ_Zhc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-LR4KkPYDo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjGi7w6kPSI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gaH1N5PV_7E

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNPaPX9mLAc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1mi_RcSLQ8

also:

[5] the Latin Vulgate of Jerome, which he, himself, in print, admits he altered from the Old Itala [Italic; Latin], [see Preface page ?v?],

and finally:

[6] the various opinions, pseudo-guesswork, patchwork Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic and Latin which relied upon various concordances and lexicons of liberals and heretics, and critical methods and biases of the NKJV translators/editors themselves.] ...?
Posted By: Matthew 10vs8

Re: Bible Doctrines affected by Modern Versions - 07/03/21 11:43 AM

Amos 4:4 KJB ?Come to Bethel, and transgress; at Gilgal multiply transgression; and bring your sacrifices every morning, and your tithes after three years:?

NKJV Amos 4:4 ?Come to Bethel and transgress,
At Gilgal multiply transgression;
Bring your sacrifices every morning,
Your tithes every three [a]days.

Messing with Tithe. The KJB states, "after three years" (See Deuteronomy 14:28, 26:12). The NKJV states, "every three days". What??? Even the NKJV footnote, [a.] states, "Amos 4:4 Or years, Deut. 14:28". Why then not have the text read as the KJB which comes from the Masoretic Hebrew? The NKJV isn't referring to the Masoretic Hebrew here, it draw upon the so called 'lxx' (Origen Hexapla), that's why, "[h]eis ten triemerian ta epidekata umon".

Brenton's so called lxx (English) - Amo 4:4? Ye went into Bethel, and sinned, and ye multiplied sin at Galgala; and ye brought your meat-offerings in the morning, and your tithes every third day.?

1 Corinthians 1:21 KJB ?For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.?

NKJV 1 Corinthians 1:21 For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe.

See the difference?

2 Corinthians 2:17?KJB For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.?

NKJV For we are not, as [a]so many, peddling the word of God; but as of sincerity, but as from God, we speak in the sight of God in Christ.

[b.] 2 Corinthians 2:17 adulterating for gain

See the difference? The KJB is speaking about altering God's word in any manner for any reason (as shown in this thread), and the other, NKJV, is merely concerned with altering God's word for sales (which they do through copyright, so they condemn themselves).

1 Timothy 6:5?KJB Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.?

NKJV 1 Timothy 6:5 [a]useless wranglings of men of corrupt minds and destitute of the truth, who suppose that godliness is a means of gain. [b]From such withdraw yourself.

See the difference? The KJB is speaking about those who think that being rich is an approval from God for what they do, like the Pharisees did. The NKJV is speaking about those who think they can use 'godliness' (a form of religion) to obtain gain. The very next verse in contrast proves the validity of the KJB.

1 Timothy 6:6?KJB But godliness with contentment is great gain.?

1 Timothy 6:10?KJB For the love of money is the root of [b]all
evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.?

NKJV 1 Timothy 6:10 For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil, for which some have strayed from the faith in their greediness, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.

See the difference? The KJB is telling us that "the love of money (selfishness, see SoP/ToJ, ?? selfishness, the root of all evil.?? Child Guidance (1954), page 294.1; also Education (1903), page 225.4, this is no contradiction, proof upon request, or see "Windows - God's Operating System - https://archive.org/download/window...ows%20-%20Gods%20Operating%20System.pptx )" is the root of "all" evil, while the NKJV is saying it is only the root of "all kinds" of evil, not all evil at their base.

There are many more subtil changes, and some completely alter doctrines in the scripture, or place doubt into ones that exist therein:

Mark 7:19?KJB Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?

NKJV Mark 7:19 because it does not enter his heart but his stomach, and is eliminated, [a]thus purifying all foods??

NKJV Footnote [a.] Mark 7:19 NU sets off the final phrase as Mark?s comment that Jesus has declared all foods clean.

That just put into the minds of the reader that Jesus negated the food/health laws of clean and unclean/abomination which is a doctrine of devils.

Every reference will be provided as needful.

There is even a Cosmic Christ, "the Christ" in the NKJV.
Posted By: Green Cochoa

Re: Bible Doctrines affected by Modern Versions - 07/03/21 08:35 PM

Matthew, regarding Amos 4:4, the Hebrew word "yowm" , made plural in this text, i.e. "yamim" (יָמִ֖ים), can mean day, time, or year. It is usually translated as day, but there are times when it definitely should mean year. In Hebrew, context is very important. Translators could be challenged on a text like this to know whether the context meant days or years. When ambiguities like this exist, marginal notes are appropriate to help the reader understand it.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.
Posted By: kland

Re: Bible Doctrines affected by Modern Versions - 07/12/21 05:57 PM

Matthew, I'd like to hear your response to Green's comment.

Three years or three days?

It is quite apparent there is a difference. But as much as you like showing differences, I don't believe that was ever under question. Easy to show differences, but kind of pointless. Show me someone who thinks there is no literal difference between any of the versions.

I believe the question was ever to do with, How do we know which is correct? Would you say the committee members who were translating other versions were dishonest and the KJV members were honest? How do we know that? Why not consider both were honest but considered their translation the most accurate and the possibility exists that either may be wrong or right? That all translators do the best they can given the knowledge they have available and all strive for accuracy. That there may continue to be questions, that we as readers should make for ourselves availability of multiple versions and take the Bible as a whole rather than any specific verse for understanding it.
Posted By: Green Cochoa

Re: Bible Doctrines affected by Modern Versions - 07/13/21 01:55 AM

By way of follow up:

I asked one of my Hebrew professors about that verse and whether or not it should refer to three days or three years, and the professor opined that perhaps it should be three days--but that it could be understood either way. The problem is that the word can mean either one, and the context allows, in this case, for either meaning, so it is unclear which way it should be read/understood.

A similar ambiguity comes up in the story of Hannah. After hearing the blessing from Eli (1 Samuel 1:17), she went away rejoicing that she had received answer from God. But how long was it before she conceived (vs. 20)? The Hebrew word for day/time/year (yowm) is again plural, and this time it is definite (preceded by "the"). Should we understand that it took years before Samuel was conceived, even after Eli's blessing? According to the Hebrew, this is a possible interpretation. When I asked my Jewish Hebrew professor about this text he understood the plural to refer to "seasons," and thought it should be considered to be about one natural year, according to the normal cycle of conception and pregnancy. But he agreed that it could mean multiple years had passed before Samuel was born.

Hebrew does not really have a verb tense system. Scholars prefer to speak of Hebrew verbs using terms like "aspect." The Hebrew verbs' "aspect" includes things like whether or not the action is repeated (cyclic, continuous) or whether it occurred just once (imperfect vs. perfect aspect). Hebrew participles can be active, passive, etc., and can be used as nouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs, and perhaps even more (it's complex and I'm still learning). Commands in Hebrew can never be given by a passive verb--so nifal/nufal, hofal, etc. verb forms cannot be commands. But the yiqtol verbs, usually translated in future tense, can be commands. In Hebrew, there is only one word which starts a relative clause [אֲשֶׁ֛ר "asher" (full form) / שֶׁ "she" (abbreviated)--Jonah 4:10 uses both forms]: because English has many such words, translation can be tricky (e.g. who, that, which, whose, where, when, etc.). Translation changes the grammar between languages. For example, in Genesis 45:4, Hebrew says "I am Joseph your brother (asher) you sold me." In English, that relative clause cannot be "whom you sold me" so we change it to "whom you sold." But in Hebrew, that pronoun "me" is there (embedded in the direct object marker) which is not translated to English. In my interlinear, the "me" is not even rendered in the English gloss for that phrase because it makes no sense in English to include it, and it is not necessary when the relative clause is in effect. As with English, sometimes Hebrew omits the relative pronoun; for example "I thought you would" and "I thought that you would" are equivalent in meaning--the relative pronoun "that" is optional.

All of this was to say that translation from Hebrew to English is not always clear and straightforward. Anytime one translates between languages, some of the original is lost. While some English idioms started from the King James translation of the Bible, there are other Hebrew idioms that did not survive translation. For example, throughout the Old Testament when one sees the term "longsuffering" or perhaps "slow to anger" in English (e.g. Jonah 4:2), it is usually from a Hebrew idiom "nose was/is slow." Now, why would God have a slow nose (אַפַּ֙יִם)? If you get very angry, perhaps your nose will get red. But God's nose is slow. It's the opposite of having a quick temper. Looking at only the English, you would have no idea that the Hebrew uses the word "nose" because they have translated the idiom to something that makes more sense in English.

I think it's a crime that Adventist students, especially in high school and above, are not taught the Biblical languages in our Adventist schools. Literally. It's a sin. Ellen White has told us that the Bible should be our textbook. Unfortunately, it is only our "textbook" (hardly that, even) for "Bible class." We are not in compliance with the word of the Lord on this matter.

I wish I had been taught the Biblical languages early, when my mind was more able to learn and retain them. Nevertheless, I am very happy to be learning them now. The courses are all online, and I have been taking them for several years now. Hebrew is a fascinating language.

Regarding Bible versions, I highly value and appreciate the KJV. It is, overall, the best we have in English. But there are no perfect translations. Theologically speaking, there are some very egregious errors that have come in through the modern translations. They correct some of the KJV's errors, only to insert real bloomers in critical places. It's as if the devil's intention was to give those introduced heresies credibility by having superior translation in some other places. Reader beware!

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.
Posted By: Matthew 10vs8

Re: Bible Doctrines affected by Modern Versions - 07/13/21 10:19 PM

Originally Posted by Green Cochoa
... I think it's a crime that Adventist students, especially in high school and above, are not taught the Biblical languages in our Adventist schools.
I could quote what the SoP/ToJ says about that, but I won't. You may look them up for yourself. Just type "education" "languages" for a start.

Originally Posted by Green Cochoa
Regarding Bible versions, I highly value and appreciate the KJV. It is, overall, the best we have in English. But there are no perfect translations.
Regarding translations.

Have you considered Exodus 20:1-17? What language did God speak to all the congregation of Israel (and mixed multitude present also, including Moses' wife, Zipporah, a Midianite)? Is it God's original tongue of Heaven (such as Paul heard)? What language were the Ten Commandments written in?

Have you considered Genesis 42, with Joseph in Egypt speaking to his brethren? What language is it written in? What language was Joseph speaking to his brethren by? (see Genesis 42:7,23)

Have you considered Ezra 4:7-16? What language is it written in? What language was the letter to Artaxerxes I Longimanus/Machrocheir written by "Bishlam, Mithredath, Tabeel, and the rest of their companions" in the following verses (vss 11-16)?

Have you considered Acts 26:14? What language is it written in? What language was the latter part spoken in?

Did God preserve the words we need (Psalms 12:6-7, etc) or simply the ideas or both?

Originally Posted by Green Cochoa
Theologically speaking, there are some very egregious errors that have come in through the modern translations. They correct some of the KJV's errors ...
"KJV errors". Please provide 3 examples from the OT and 3 examples from the NT, thank you.

Originally Posted by Green Cochoa
... by having superior translation in some other places ...
"superior translation" is subjective, and moreso since you gave no standard or foundation by which to test that which is supposed to be superior to that which is supposed to be inferior.

Please produce 3 "superior translations" in the OT, and 3 "superior translations" in the NT, and give the founational ruler, or standard by which you measured against to determine the 'superiority' and 'inferiority'. Thank you.

(PS, How many Bibles (and in what languages) do I need, so that I can have all of God's words, and finally have no errors when combined, and how do I determine what is and is not errors in these that I am to have, so that I can take out all of the errors and have a pure Bible without error, or do you suggest that there will always be error no matter what, or do you suggest that the original autograph's are alone without error,or do you suggest the original speech before being written are without error (like God/Moses, Jeremiah/Baruch, Paul/Tertias, etc)?
Posted By: Green Cochoa

Re: Bible Doctrines affected by Modern Versions - 07/14/21 03:50 AM

Matthew,

Take a deep breath. I am not your enemy. We wrestle not against flesh and blood...remember?

Have you seen what Mrs. White wrote about Bible versions/perversions? If not, please click HERE to see some of those statements. They are important.

Having said that, Mrs. White herself used some of the "new" versions that had come out in her day, and most people wrongly use that as evidence that any version is okay.

As to there being poor translations in the Bible, this is a fact supported by Mrs. White. But she herself would tell us not to make too big a deal out of it, lest scoffers have reason to scoff and to discredit the Word of God. Just the same, a Christian with breadth of mind will acknowledge the truth, and since you have insisted that you wish to see some of the errors, I will oblige you. Let's start by remembering that there are errors even in the original underlying text, before it was translated.

Originally Posted by Ellen White
While Luther was opening a closed Bible to the people of Germany, Tyndale was impelled by the Spirit of God to do the same for England. Wycliffe's Bible had been translated from the Latin text, which contained many errors. It had never been printed, and the cost of manuscript copies was so great that few but wealthy men or nobles could procure it, and, furthermore, being strictly proscribed by the church, it had had a comparatively narrow circulation. In 1516, a year before the appearance of Luther's theses, Erasmus had published his Greek and Latin version of the New Testament. Now for the first time the Word of God was printed in the original tongue. In this work many errors of former versions were corrected, and the sense was more clearly rendered. It led many among the educated classes to a better knowledge of the truth, and gave a new impetus to the work of reform. But the common people were still, to a great extent, debarred from God's Word. Tyndale was to complete the work of Wycliffe in giving the Bible to his countrymen. {GC88 245.1}


Notice that Ellen White does not say "all" of the errors were corrected by Erasmus in the Greek text he compiled. She doesn't even say that "most" of the errors were corrected. She says "many". It is clear, therefore, that errors remained. Notice also that Erasmus was correcting the text which Wycliffe's Bible translation had used. Wycliffe had translated the Bible to English for the first time.

Quote
The Wycliffe Bible laid the groundwork for further translations of the Bible into English, as we shall see. In fact, the King James Version retains much of the same wording as the Wycliffe Bible, and continues its legacy.


So, the KJV was heavily influenced by the text whose source had had many errors. This is historical fact.

Keep in mind that I am far, far from being anti-KJV. I am much closer to being a KJV-onlyer, as you will learn if you read many of my posts in this forum. I use KJV almost strictly when doing any serious Bible study, especially in terms of doctrines. But I am able to recognize that there are errors. I have stated in places that for every error in the KJV I could find ten errors, and more egregious ones, in the NIV. I like to call the latter the "Not Inspired Version" because its errors are so malignant. So please understand that I am not against the KJV when I point out some of its errors.

You have asked for three each in the OT and the NT.

OLD TESTAMENT

Let's start with the Ten Commandments.

OT-1:

Originally Posted by The Holy Bible
Thou shalt not kill. (Exodus 20:13, KJV; Deuteronomy 5:17, KJV)


The word "kill" is a mistranslation. The NIV is superior in this text, saying "You shall not murder." The Hebrew word is "ratsach" which is translated almost everywhere else in the KJV as murder, manslaughter, etc. For some reason, specifically in the Ten Commandment, and in BOTH places (Exodus and Deuteronomy), they translated this as "kill." Hebrew has many words for kill and destroy, and this unfortunate translation puts the Bible at odds with itself--creating a contradiction within God's Word.

Originally Posted by The Bible
And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. (Leviticus 20:16)


According to the KJV mistranslation of this important commandment, God later asks the people to break it. And if one were to broaden the "kill" to animals, in addition to people, then the commandment to kill for each of the sacrificial offers also breaks the Ten Commandments.

Obviously, this is a significant error, and very important to doctrinal truth. This is not merely a misplaced comma, nor a misspelling of someone's name (there are many of those, of course).



OT-2:

Originally Posted by The Holy Bible
Yea, he magnified himself even to the prince of the host, and by him the daily sacrifice was taken away, and the place of the sanctuary was cast down. (Daniel 8:11, KJV)

And an host was given him against the daily sacrifice by reason of transgression, and it cast down the truth to the ground; and it practised, and prospered. (Daniel 8:12, KJV)

Then I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said unto that certain saint which spake, How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot? (Daniel 8:13, KJV)

And arms shall stand on his part, and they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily sacrifice, and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate. (Daniel 11:31, KJV)

And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days. (Daniel 12:11, KJV)


I don't need to say much about this error, because Mrs. White, under inspiration, tells us about it.

Originally Posted by Ellen White
Then I saw in relation to the "daily" (Daniel 8:12) that the word "sacrifice" was supplied by man's wisdom, and does not belong to the text, and that the Lord gave the correct view of it to those who gave the judgment hour cry. When union existed, before 1844, nearly all were united on the correct view of the "daily"; but in the confusion since 1844, other views have been embraced, and darkness and confusion have followed. Time has not been a test since 1844, and it will never again be a test. {EW 74.2}


The fact is, the definite article "the" precedes the adverb "daily" in the original Hebrew without a noun being present. The translators felt it necessary, grammatically, to add a noun, which they did with "sacrifice." But, while this is indeed unusual grammar for Hebrew, it is not unheard of. Even in English we sometimes break the usual rules for articles preceding nouns by having the article before an adjective or an adverb instead.

For example: "The less the better." Why do we have "the" in this phrase? To emphasize something...and it turns that something into a noun which ordinarily would not have been a noun. The same should be true in these texts in Daniel. By the way, scholars largely agree that the book of Daniel presents the most difficult level of Hebrew of any in the Old Testament.

So this KJV error regarding "the daily" is attested by Ellen White. This error of the Wycliffe and KJV was propagated to virtually all English Bibles today. YLT and Darby each put the word "sacrifice" in square brackets, indicating it was an addition to the text--but still leave it there, just the same. Many modern translations have taken it a step farther in substituting "burnt offering" for the word "sacrifice." The MSG translation says "daily worship"--an interesting variation. But the entire text seems to have been translated poorly if one looks at in Hebrew. There are at least two other points in it where variations could make a big difference.

OT-3:

Originally Posted by The Holy Bible
And Abraham lifted up his eyes, and looked, and behold behind him a ram caught in a thicket by his horns: and Abraham went and took the ram, and offered him up for a burnt offering in the stead of his son. (Genesis 22:13, KJV)


The English "behind" here was mistranslated from the Hebrew, which should say, instead "white." The word "him" in English was entirely supplied--it is not in the Hebrew text. In other words, "a white ram" is what the text says. Something about the similarity of the word root with another Hebrew word causes most translators to see it as a preposition or a conjunction instead of as an adjective "white" here, and virtually all translations have gone the wrong direction, KJV included. This particular detail, which some might consider unimportant, was highlighted in my Hebrew class one day as Yahuda Cohen, the Jewish professor, made a special point of explaining it. He is a traditional Jew who does not accept Jesus as the Messiah, but he still recognized the truth that the "white" color represents the purity and sinlessness of our Substitute.

While I was unable to find an English translation using the word "white" in translating this phrase, many omit "behind" and some add "single," as in "a single ram." There must be some ambiguity to the word to allow for these variations. So perhaps our KJV translators can be excused here, as they are in good company. On the other hand, it might be that the KJV is what influenced all later translations away from a more accurate representation.

Well, as you might not accept this particular error, as it is not attested by other versions, nor by Ellen White, I will add another one.

OT-4:

Originally Posted by The Holy Bible
And he stripped off his clothes also, and prophesied before Samuel in like manner, and lay down naked all that day and all that night. Wherefore they say, Is Saul also among the prophets? (1 Samuel 19:24, KJV)


Originally Posted by Ellen White
"When he came to Naioth in Ramah, he laid aside his outer garments that betokened his station, and all day, and all night, he lay before Samuel and his pupils, under the influence of the divine Spirit." {ST, August 24, 1888 par. 8}


In other words, Saul removed his kingly outer clothing--not his inner clothing. He was not entirely nude. The Hebrew word here, בְּגָדָ֗יו (bə?ḡā?ḏāw), could be translated as either "clothing" or as "garment." Obviously, the latter would not imply such a complete disrobing as the former, and it is this latter which is the correct translation. The AMPC gets it right. So do the ICB and NCV.

Originally Posted by The Bible
He took off his royal robes and prophesied before Samuel and lay down stripped thus all that day and night. So they say, Is Saul also among the prophets? (1 Samuel 19:24, AMPC)

He took off his robes and prophesied in front of Samuel. He lay that way all day and all night. That is why people ask, ?Is even Saul one of the prophets?? (1 Samuel 19:24, ICB)

He took off his robes and prophesied in front of Samuel. He lay that way all day and all night. That is why people ask, ?Is even Saul one of the prophets?? (1 Samuel 19:24, NCV)


Well, you asked for three--I have just given you three times that many verses from the OT. So, let's move to the NT.

NEW TESTAMENT

NT-1:

Originally Posted by The Holy Bible
But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. (Matthew 5:39, KJV)


This error is significant. Should we not resist evil? Thankfully, once again, Mrs. White helps us understand this one, because it IS important. This time she does not highlight the error directly, but quotes the verse from a different version. Twice in the same context.

Originally Posted by Ellen White
"Resist not him that is evil: but whosoever
smiteth thee on thy right cheek, turn
to him the other also." Matthew 5:39, R.V.


Occasions of irritation to the Jews were constantly arising from their contact with the Roman soldiery. Detachments of troops were stationed at different points throughout Judea and Galilee, and their presence reminded the people of their own degradation as a nation. With bitterness of soul they heard the loud blast of the trumpet and saw the troops forming around the standard of Rome and bowing in homage to this symbol of her power. Collisions between the people and the soldiers were frequent, and these inflamed the popular hatred. Often as some Roman official with his guard of soldiers hastened from point to point, he would seize upon the Jewish peasants who were laboring in the field and compel them to carry burdens up the mountainside or render any other service that might be needed. This was in accordance with the Roman law and custom, and resistance to such demands only called forth taunts and cruelty. Every day deepened in the hearts of the people the longing to cast off the Roman yoke. Especially among the bold, rough-handed Galileans the spirit of insurrection was rife. Capernaum, being a border town, was the seat of a Roman garrison, and even while Jesus was teaching, the sight of a company of soldiers recalled to His hearers the bitter thought of Israel's humiliation. The people looked eagerly to Christ, hoping that He was the One who was to humble the pride of Rome. {MB 69.2}

With sadness Jesus looks into the upturned faces before Him. He notes the spirit of revenge that has stamped its evil imprint upon them, and knows how bitterly the people long for power to crush their oppressors. Mournfully He bids them, "Resist not him that is evil: but whosoever smiteth thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also." {MB 70.1}


In Greek, the definite article uncharacteristically precedes the adjective "evil," which should make it either a noun or reference an antecedent noun. The adjective being singular, the referent should also be singular, making "one" a correct translation. In Greek, sentences are not ordered as they are in English, with subject -> verb -> object (SVO). Words are "inflected" to indicate their part of speech so that, regardless of where they appear in the sentence, the grammar is clear. In this case, the antecedent actually appears after the word, in the part translated as "whoever" or "whosoever."

Jesus is not telling us not to resist evil! He is telling us not to resist the evil person who seeks to harm us.


NT-2:

Originally Posted by The Holy Bible
And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen. (Matthew 6:13, KJV)


Same song, second verse. Ellen White again confirms this--and, again, by quoting from a different translation.

Originally Posted by Ellen White
"Bring us not into temptation, but
deliver us from the evil one."
Matthew 6:13, R.V.

Temptation is enticement to sin, and this does not proceed from God, but from Satan and from the evil of our own hearts. "God cannot be tempted with evil, and He Himself tempteth no man." James 1:13, R.V. {MB 116.2}


In this case, perhaps, we would like to be delivered from both evil and the Evil One--but, living in the world as we are, the former waits until the coming of Christ to be fulfilled. Our prayers should more specially focus on deliverance from Satan in our present lives.


NT-3:

Originally Posted by The Holy Bible
And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people. (Acts 12:4, KJV)


The Greek word here is πάσχα (pascha). That means Passover, not Easter! This error is so blatant and straightforward as to be widely attested by scholars and more correctly translated (as Passover) by many other Bible versions, including: ASV, AMP, AMPC, CSB, CEB, Darby, DLNT, ERV, EHV, ESV, GNT, Phillips, Mounce, NASB, NCV, NIV, etc.

There was really no excuse for this one. None. It's an embarrassment.

There are actually many more errors one could find, but I will stop here as I have other burdens on my time. Let me wrap up with a summary of what you asked and my overall response to it.

Originally Posted by Matthew 10vs8
"superior translation" is subjective, and moreso since you gave no standard or foundation by which to test that which is supposed to be superior to that which is supposed to be inferior.

Please produce 3 "superior translations" in the OT, and 3 "superior translations" in the NT, and give the founational ruler, or standard by which you measured against to determine the 'superiority' and 'inferiority'. Thank you.

(PS, How many Bibles (and in what languages) do I need, so that I can have all of God's words, and finally have no errors when combined, and how do I determine what is and is not errors in these that I am to have, so that I can take out all of the errors and have a pure Bible without error, or do you suggest that there will always be error no matter what, or do you suggest that the original autograph's are alone without error,or do you suggest the original speech before being written are without error (like God/Moses, Jeremiah/Baruch, Paul/Tertias, etc)?


As you can see, I have been easily able to find superior translations. These are frequently supportable by Ellen White herself. But anyone who can read the Bible in its original languages can give testimony to these truths. I am thankful to have been privileged to take courses in Hebrew, Aramaic (Syriac), and Greek. I am still learning, and there is much more to learn. But Mrs. White helps us understand that there are errors in our Bibles, and she never once indicates that it is word-perfect in its translation. We are cautioned, however, not to teach that some parts are inspired and other parts not--it is not up to us to set our judgment above the Word of God. That said, anyone can easily see that some of these errors should be fixed. If Ellen White, who was inspired by God, tells us of a mistake--doesn't that mean that there is?

It is my understanding that there will always be some mistakes. No translation can ever be perfect. You may not know, but I have been involved in Bible translation work for a number of years now. We are nearing completion, and hope to finish it this year. The language to which I am translating has no verb conjugations, no plurals, no articles, a much-reduced set of prepositions and conjunctions (no words for: lest, of, etc.), no way to distinguish between restrictive and nonrestrictive dependent clauses, no way to say words like "brother" or "sister" without imposing age/status (older/younger) on them, and no way to use common pronouns for royalty or deity. The language itself forces decisions no translator would like to make. We must, because of the grammar, both add and subtract some words or information. For example, was Goliath's brother older or younger? It might not be important, but after translation, it has a 50% chance of being right--it's just guesswork. There is no way to omit this within the language.

Now, given the language I have just described, do you think a perfect translation to it can exist? Don't you think it would be better if people read the original language--or maybe, even, just read the Bible in English? But they don't know those languages. They don't have those options. Neither is the English translation without error.

Jesus commissioned his disciples to carry the Gospel to every nation, tongue, and people. That means we must translate it into every language. Mrs. White's books, as least in part, are translated into at least 135 languages. And I wish we had more translations of her writings.

God bless,

Green Cochoa.
Posted By: Matthew 10vs8

Re: Bible Doctrines affected by Modern Versions - 07/17/21 03:00 PM

Originally Posted by Green Cochoa
Matthew,

Take a deep breath. I am not your enemy. We wrestle not against flesh and blood...remember?
Green Cochoa,

I combat the error of false ideologies and spiritual errors that are in the modern English translations and in modern schooling, which are not flesh and blood, but spiritual (of the carnal mind, the deceitful heart, of that subtil serpent). Utilizing faulty logic and borrowed reasoning (to be explained below), means you are simply in the way of the fire (Revelation 11:5; Jeremiah 20:9). If you cease from defending those, you will not be so injured, neither take offense. Since you are not my enemy, as you say, why take offense as if I were attempting to be so? An opponent is not always an enemy (Genesis 32:24). I am simply trying to draw your attention to something higher in standards.

Originally Posted by Green Cochoa
Have you seen what Mrs. White wrote about Bible versions/perversions? If not, please click HERE to see some of those statements. They are important.
Thank you for the citations. They further add to the validity of what I have stated and asked of you. I shall address what you 'think' are errors momentarily.

Originally Posted by Green Cochoa
Having said that, Mrs. White herself used some of the "new" versions that had come out in her day, and most people wrongly use that as evidence that any version is okay.
Yes, sister White utilized some of the other English translations in some of her writings. I have such an list, and comparison. Pretty much all of those translations (Leeser (1853), Noyes (1868), RV (1881-85), ASV (1901) and etc., are no longer in common (one might find a rare individual here or there) use or even sales today (though some of the descendants of the RV and ASV are, though changed even worse). The only one primarily in use in comparison to those is the "common" Bible, the King James Bible (KJB), over 400 years strong.

The percentage of her usage of those, alongside of the "common" Bible (KJB) is around Less than 1%-5% (other translations) to 95%-99% (KJB) in nearly (there are some exceptions) any work.

As for instance in the Great Controversy 1888 edition:

GC 1888, 7 texts of revised, and 8 marginal readings, of more than 850 texts (statistics provided by the White Estate (see below)).

7/850 = .008%
8/850 = .009%
15/850 = .017%

This means that in the Great Controversy 1888 edition (the book that was to travel the world over and explain the deep mystery of godliness and mystery of iniquity, the original of evil and the redemption plan), it is:

KJB (the "common" Bible) = 99.983%

The White Estate, though misusing (probably misunderstanding) some of her statements (in the same work - to be demonstrated as needful; having read it multiple times, studied it and hand typed out every single word to make sure I read each one in context), even shows some of these in example:

"... As noted earlier, Mrs. White occasionally used the Revised Version renderings, also the marginal reading of texts, in nearly all of her books published after 1885, the year of the appearance of the complete English Revised Version.

In The Great Controversy, published in 1888, seven texts from the newly issued revision were employed, and she also used the marginal rendering of eight other texts. The proportion of Revised Version and marginal rendering of texts is very small when we consider that there are more than 850 scriptures quoted in The Great Controversy, or an average of a little more than one scripture text to a page, whereas there is approximately one Revised Version rendering and one marginal rendering for each one hundred pages.

In 1901 The American Revised Version came from the press, and from that time forward we find that Mrs. White occasionally employed both the English Revised and the American Revised versions.

In 1911, when The Great Controversy was reset, Mrs. White retained six of the seven texts previously quoted from the English Revised Version. For the other text she substituted the American Revised rendering. The eight marginal renderings were used as in the earlier edition.

In the publications of The Ministry of Healing (1905) Mrs. White employed eight texts from the English Revised Version, 55 from the American Revised Version, two from Leeser, and four from the Noyes, in addition to seven marginal renderings.

Other volumes in which Revised Version texts frequently appear are Patriarchs and Prophets (1890); Steps to Christ (1892); Thoughts From the Mount of Blessing (1896); The Desire of Ages (1898); Education (1903); and Testimonies for the Church, vol. 8 (1904).

The E. G. White books using a few Revised Version or marginal renderings are Christ's Object Lessons (1900); Testimonies for the Church, vol. 7 (1902); Testimonies for the Church, vol. 9 (1909); The Acts of the Apostles (1911); Counsels to Parents, Teachers and Students (1913); Gospel Workers (1915); and Prophets and Kings (1917).

Patriarchs and Prophets (1890) also contains two renderings from the Bernard translation, and at least one from the Boothroyd Version. Education (1903) contains at least one rendering from the Rotherham translation. ..." - https://m.egwwritings.org/en/book/710.60

The reason for those uses, in those places where she utilized them (other English translations), are generally obvious when studied in comparison to the KJB translation. She was not attempting to make a Bible, where words are needed to be explained line upon line (Isaiah 28:10,13), but was simply attempting to convey the meaning of the thought in whatever she was writing, such as the Desire of Ages, the Great Controversy, etc. Sometimes the King James Bible translation would not 'fit' in with those areas of thought so readily, and it was more preferable to utilize another translation in those places. Sister White, even changed some of those translations out for others, when a reprinting was done (such as the GC 1911 ed. as noted above).

Finally, that sister White utilized individual texts, as well sometimes passages of texts (especially in the Psalms, at the request and advice of her family members, such as W.C. White, "... When Testimonies for the Church, vol. 8, was printed and it seemed desirable to make some lengthy quotations from the Psalms, it was pointed out to Sister White that the Revised Version of these Psalms was preferable, and that by using the form of blank verse the passages were more readable..." - https://m.egwwritings.org/en/book/710.60 ), never equated to her in condoning all that they were as translations (such as is misused today by most all of the Seventh-day Adventist publications and editors, wherein, even using Sister White). She did not accept all that they were as translations, but attempted to have it as readable (as suggested by her son W.C. White) as possible ("prose" ("form of blank verse"), though I find "prose" unreadable (it looks like a jumbled mess to my eyesight, though I am sure it works well for others) compared to the KJB line upon line, which is also why those who translated the KJB did not place it in prose either, though they considered the idea as well, some being intimately acquainted with music, lyric, meter, etc). I am sure you are more than aware of this aspect (referring to the link you provided).

Sister White made sure that when things doctrinal came into play, the doctrines would not be affected, and carefully chose out the translations when comparing the "common" Bible with the others, as for instance:

"... When the first revision was published, I purchased a good copy and gave it to Mother. She referred to it occasionally, but never used it in her preaching. Later on, as manuscripts were prepared for her new books and for revised editions of books already in print, Sister White's attention was called from time to time by myself and Sister Marian Davis, to the fact that she was using texts which were much more clearly translated in the Revised Version. Sister White studied each one carefully, and in some cases she instructed us to use the Revised Version. In other cases she instructed us to adhere to the Authorized Version. ..." - https://m.egwwritings.org/en/book/710.60

Please notice, that in certain instances sister White's attention is being drawn to another translation, by others, such as W.C. White, Marian Davis, etal. The same goes for the reason, of why the RV is found in the Testimonies, especially in the Psalms references (though there are others also).

What we know about the RV today, is shocking! It has occult connections to spiritualists (Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort, among others, as released in their diaries/journals published by their children/grandchildren), and Rome herself, in both the Sinaiticus (Aleph; which also contains 'Shepherd of Hermes' and 'Barnabas'), Alexandrinus (A.) ("desert") and Vaticanus (B.) Codices ("secret chambers") (Matthew 24:26).

Mat_24:26? Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not.

Context? False prophets (Matthew 24:24), which are simply false messengers bearing a false word. Just like the two false witnesses of the corrupted mss. Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph) is a forgery by Constantine Simonides:

Playlist 37 videos proving Sinaiticus (Codex Aleph) is a fraud, being created by Simonides.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVjOhDJ5HKo&list=PLhmAbEGx-AnT8VmEOfkIc4U8Zx7cozYEv

Playlist 15 videos, Sinaiticus Fraud.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4O557156hxg&list=PLhmAbEGx-AnQH6d4TDYj71vvew8QGgUpn

Playlist 6 Videos, LXX (so called Septuagint is a fake)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9dztt0evpQ&list=PLhmAbEGx-AnRh2YgrQvayYlEItaAoISWA

Originally Posted by Green Cochoa
As to there being poor translations in the Bible, this is a fact supported by Mrs. White.
Assertion, without documented evidence and definitely not "fact". Sister White, never ever stated, or intimated that any portion of the King James Bible was "poor", or "poorly" translated (you will not find one such statement, - prove me wrong (and I will retract my statement) or retract this statement being that you are in error and overstated your position). You made up that assertion by what you think she stated. This assertion by incorrect apriori may be safely ignored.

In the pulpit the "common" Bible was always used by sister White. Do those who utilize sister White as an example of using alternate English translations (in her writings) follow the counsel on that in matters preaching? No. They pick and choose (or ignoring the "common" bible altogether, and using a Jesuit NIV, etc), being hypocrites or ignorant of the matter.

"... Sister White's reasons for not using the A.R.V. In the pulpit are as follows:

?There are many persons in the congregation who remember the words of the texts we might use as they are presented in the Authorized Version, and to read from the Revised Version would introduce perplexing questions in their minds as to why the wording of the text had been changed by the revisers and as to why it was being used by the speaker.' ..." - https://m.egwwritings.org/en/book/710.60

Originally Posted by Green Cochoa
But she herself would tell us not to make too big a deal out of it, lest scoffers have reason to scoff and to discredit the Word of God.
Mere assertion again. There is no such statement from sister White - anywhere, to that effect.

Originally Posted by Green Cochoa
Just the same, a Christian with breadth of mind will acknowledge the truth
Do you suggest me something or something not here?

Originally Posted by Green Cochoa
and since you have insisted that you wish to see some of the errors, I will oblige you.
I will demonstrate that what you have presented are not "errors" at all, neither faulty "translations". I also make the assertion that sister White never said that what you presented were "error", or faulty in translation.

Of course I insisted, since you boldly asserted such a claim. It is your burden of proof, not mine in this matter. If I make the assertion, then the burden is upon myself.

Originally Posted by Green Cochoa
Let's start by remembering that there are errors even in the original underlying text, before it was translated.

Originally Posted by Ellen White
While Luther was opening a closed Bible to the people of Germany, Tyndale was impelled by the Spirit of God to do the same for England. Wycliffe's Bible had been translated from the Latin text, which contained many errors.

Just wow. That is a misuse of sister White's statement!

She said that the Latin text (Jerome's corruption) had errors! She never said that the "original underlying text" (of the King James Bible, or even the preserved stream of God's word) had errors. She was only referring to what Wycliffe was working with, a known corruption of the true preserved stream!

The Jerome's Latin text of course had errors, since he corrupted it, even utilizing the corrupted Hexapla of Origen (the so called lxx), even as Jerome admits in his own material!. The new Latin Vulgate was requested by the 'pope' of Rome (Damasus, in 382 A.D.) and approved by the Council of Carthage, as, "the infallible and authentic Bible". It was to support Roman dogmas (like perpetual virginity, etc). Helvidius opposed it! (Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Christian Lit. Ed.), Vol. VI, p. 338) He also fought (wars of words) against Ambrosiaster. Others (even Catholic scholars, Saint Mary's Press) have noted:

"... A familiar text like the Lord?s Prayer illustrates Jerome?s problems. The Greek word that is rendered as daily in the phrase ?Give us this day our daily bread? is not the usual Greek word for daily. In fact, outside the two occurrences in the Matthean and Lucan versions of the Lord?s Prayer, that word occurs only once in all of classical Greek literature. The older Latin versions translated the Greek word as quotidianum (?daily?) in Latin.

Jerome believed this to be inaccurate so he attempted another rendering, which he may have coined himself: supersubstantialem (Matthew 6:11). ..." - https://www.smp.org/resourcecenter/resource/2637/

That change had nothing to do with difficulty in language translation, it was in actuality to substantiate the Mass (Eucharist) of Rome.

Jerome's Latin was never the Italic (Vetus Latina, original Latin Vulgate), but a perversion of it, just as God's word stated would be happening:

2Co_2:17? For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.

Wycliffe simply utilized what he had in His English translation, and though it contained many Roman errors, it served its purpose to bring light to those who could not read 'Vulgate' Latin. It is also why the later translators like Tyndale, Luther, etc did not use it in their work of translation, though they compared it occasionally to better preserved mss and the preserved line of text to ferret out its errors.

That the Vulgate of Jerome contains errors does not prove that God's word in the true stream of preservation had errors.

That individual mss, as coming down to us today, found in museums, personal collections, etc, and containing variants, and some errors, does not prove that God's word in the true stream of preservation had errors.

I can have a Bible on my shelf, and change one word on one page in it, to an error (God forbid!), and 300 years from now, if found in a museum, would not prove that a change in the preserved stream of God's word (Psalms 12:6-7) had errors.

In fact we have an example like that, called the "Wicked Bible", "Adulterous Bible" (1631 AD by Robert Barker and Martin Lucas) in which the phrase "Thou shalt NOT commit adultery." (Exodus 20:14) was accidentally printed as "Thou SHALT commit adultery." [caps supplied for emphasis] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicked_Bible

A second reported error therein is even more egregious (at least I think):

"... The second error appears in Deuteronomy 5, where the word "greatness" was reportedly misprinted as "great-asse", leading to a sentence reading: "Behold, the Lord our God hath shewed us his glory and his great-asse".[2][3] ..." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicked_Bible

Yet, simply because of the existence of this text and its retainment to this day, does it prove that the preserved stream of God's word contains errors? Hardly.

It wouldn't even matter if ten thousand copies of that text existed. It still would not demonstrate that the preserved stream of God's word was corrupted. It would simply show a corrupted stream along side a preserved stream. In fact, the preserved stream must exist to know the corrupted stream to compare to, otherwise how will errors (in general; some can be identified contextually or linguistically internally) be known?

You over extend your position and place into sister White's mouth that which she never said.
Posted By: Matthew 10vs8

Re: Bible Doctrines affected by Modern Versions - 07/17/21 03:01 PM

Originally Posted by Green Cochoa


Originally Posted by Ellen White
While Luther was opening a closed Bible to the people of Germany, Tyndale was impelled by the Spirit of God to do the same for England. Wycliffe's Bible had been translated from the Latin text, which contained many errors. It had never been printed, and the cost of manuscript copies was so great that few but wealthy men or nobles could procure it, and, furthermore, being strictly proscribed by the church, it had had a comparatively narrow circulation. In 1516, a year before the appearance of Luther's theses, Erasmus had published his Greek and Latin version of the New Testament. Now for the first time the Word of God was printed in the original tongue. In this work many errors of former versions were corrected, and the sense was more clearly rendered. It led many among the educated classes to a better knowledge of the truth, and gave a new impetus to the work of reform. But the common people were still, to a great extent, debarred from God's Word. Tyndale was to complete the work of Wycliffe in giving the Bible to his countrymen. {GC88 245.1}


Again, the Latin (of Jerome) had errors. Wycliffe was utilizing those for his translation, but those are definitely not the Masoretic Hebrew and koine Greek texts. So if you simply assert that Wycliffe in utilizing the (admittedly) corrupt Jerome's Latin for his English translation was using an "original underlying text", that is a play on words which does injustice to what sister White's point was, and cannot equate to there being corruptions in the "original underlying text" of the Masoretic Hebrew and koine Greek that was first penned (aka, 'autographs').

Originally Posted by Green Cochoa
Notice that Ellen White does not say "all" of the errors were corrected by Erasmus in the Greek text he compiled. She doesn't even say that "most" of the errors were corrected. She says "many". It is clear, therefore, that errors remained.
Generally agreed, and more importantly non-sequitur to the point under discussion.

"Many" can mean "most" in proper context (Matthew 7:13, etc), and that sister White does not use the word "most" is not really evidence against that it doesn't mean that ("many"). I do not say it is for it either in her context (though I lean, not pontificate, that it does knowing somewhat of Erasmus' work having studied). I am saying, you are over extending again. Never the less, the entire point by sister White, is that in the Roman stream of mss, there were many errors that needed to be corrected. This in no way demonstrates that the actual preserved stream of God's word needed such, or contained "errors". Those are two (at least) differing streams of texts.

Erasmus, a humanist (not defined as in today's jargon), was a Roman Catholic outwardly, though very much a Protestant theologically (or inwardly). He was attempting to reform Roman Catholcism from the inside. He had access to some great materials, such as the Greek texts referred to. Yet, he was still within the system of Romanism, and could not effect all the changes he desired. He could not simply print what he wanted (he needed the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur, etc to get his work published and respected by other Romanists).

Of course errors remained (in a Roman Catholic work) in such a condition. Again, that does not prove that the preserved stream of God's word contained errors. What it proves, yet again, is that the corrupted Roman Stream, though attempted by Erasmus (with koine Greek texts), Wycliffe (using Jerome's Latin, etc) and others, to purify it by removing the errors, would not come entirely clean, and would remain with errors even to this day. See the Douay Rheims (Jesuit), Jerusalem Bible (Roman Catholic), NIV etc. Those errors are still in existence, but those errors are not errors of originality with the true autographs of the Bible writers and the preserved stream of God's word, but exist as errors through 'Catholicism', 'gnostics (Origen)', 'scholars' (Jerome, Augustine, etc) etc.

Originally Posted by Green Cochoa
Notice also that Erasmus was correcting the text which Wycliffe's Bible translation had used. Wycliffe had translated the Bible to English for the first time.
Actually Wycliffe is not really the first in English translation (see the Middle English Bibles). But I digress, and do not intend to get into that. See "IN AWE OF THY [GOD'S] WORD" Chapter 21 -"English Bibles Before Wycliffe"; by Gail Riplinger - https://archive.org/download/book-b...Of%20Thy%20Word%20-%20AVPublications.pdf . Even the Gothic (of which the English also derives, besides Latin, etc) of Ufilias existed before and it was purer than that of Jerome's translation.

Such statements as Wycliffe being the first are found in:

The book The Great Controversy 1888 and 1911 editions, as a general summary of events as generally known in historical matters:

"... Wycliffe's ... At last the work was completed,?the first English translation of the Bible ever made. ...", pages 88.2-88.2 - https://text.egwwritings.org/public...tion=2&section=all&pagenumber=88

The reason for the statement therein, is because Wycliffe's Bible was widely printed, whereas the others were not so widely printed. So Wycliffe is attributed as being the "first" in such matters, though other English translations already existed.

The book "Love under Fire", page 40, "... Finally the work was completed?the first English translation of the Bible. Wycliffe ..." - https://text.egwwritings.org/public...amp;QUERY=Wycliffe+first&resultId=11

A compilation work, merely utilizing an historical summation section of the Great Controversy.

"... The great events which have marked the progress of reform in past ages, are matters of history, well known and universally acknowledged by the Protestant world; they are facts which none can gainsay. This history I have presented briefly, in accordance with the scope of the book, and the brevity which must necessarily be observed, the facts having been condensed into as little space as seemed consistent with a proper understanding of their application. In some cases where a historian has so grouped together events as to afford, in brief, a comprehensive view of the subject, or has summarized details in a convenient manner, his words have been quoted; but except in a few instances no specific credit has been given, since they are not quoted for the purpose of citing that writer as authority, but because his statement affords a ready and forcible presentation of the subject. In narrating the experience and views of those carrying forward the work of reform in our own time, similar use has occasionally been made of their published works. {GC88 h.1} ..." - https://text.egwwritings.org/public...ction=2&section=all&pagenumber=h

In other words, the history referred to in the Great Controversy is not always exact or technical in their historical details. They are a general summary to get the main point across, just in case anyone wants to argue that, 'NO!, sister White said Wycliffe was the "FIRST" (foaming at the mouth) English Translation.', even irrespective of facts, evidence, history and technicality.

Even sister White thought to change the GC1888 edition when more accurate light on historical events came, and a new printing came in 1911 ed./rev. I can cite those changes.

For instance see The Changes in The Great Controversy Editions/Revisions by Vance Ferrell (Harvest Time Books) - https://archive.org/download/editions-gc-all/EditionsGC-all.pdf

The White Estate also acknowledges these changes as approved by sister White - https://whiteestate.org/legacy/issues-greatcontroversy1911-html/

In other words, you overstepped the bounds again in the use of sister White's material (like Great Controversy).

Originally Posted by Green Cochoa


Quote
The Wycliffe Bible laid the groundwork for further translations of the Bible into English, as we shall see. In fact, the King James Version retains much of the same wording as the Wycliffe Bible, and continues its legacy.


So, the KJV was heavily influenced by the text whose source had had many errors. This is historical fact.
Yes, the Wycliffe Bible (a monumental work, even guided by God's inspiration) was used in many other works (Bishops Bible, Tyndale?s, Matthew?s, Coverdale?s, Whitchurch?s, Geneva, etc), including some of the wording in the King James Bible. The King James Bible does not use "much of the same wording" as Wycliffe. To make such an statement is ignorance of the facts and comparison.

Anyone may compare the Wycliffe Bible (1394) - http://oldebible.com/wycliffe-bible/

to the King James Bible (1611) and (1769 edition, Gothic to Roman type font, certain standardization of spelling, printing (punctuational) errors, etc) -

http://oldebible.com/1611-king-james-bible/

http://oldebible.com/1769-king-james-bible/

Even right from the get "go" (Genesis) notable differnces are easily seen:

Genesis 1:1 (Wycliffe) - In the bigynnyng God made of nouyt heuene and erthe.

Genesis 1:1 KJB (1769) - In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

The word "nouyt" (nought, or nothing) is not found in the Hebrew Masoretic, neither in the so called LXX. It is not found in the KJB either at Genesis 1:1.

The word "made" was used by Wycliffe and the word "created" by the KJB translators. They mean the same thing, yes, but the same "word" ("much of the same words") was not used as claimed. As for there being similarities just in this verse, there is only so many ways to properly translate from one language to another. Wycliffe can no more take credit for that than can the KJB translators.

Does the KJB continue the Wycliffe (Bible) "legacy"? Sure. Not it's errors however.

One will never honestly come to the conclusion that "much of the same wording" was used from Wycliffe to KJB. In certain sections, words and phrases limitedly, certainly, but not "much". The KJB translators had access to much more than Wycliffe, such as the Waldnesian Bibles and Erasmian texts, etc.

The King James Bible was also influenced by the Latin (which also had errors), as others, but that doesn't mean it contains those same errors. See Isaiah 14:12

Isa_14:12 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!

Lucifer comes from the Latin, Lux Feros. Which is perfectly translating the Hebrew. That we receive it as a transliteration of the Latin is not an issue, since all translations carry transliterations.

That does not prove that it's (or theirs) errors came through that process. You over extend your position, yet again. You make implications which are vacuous and non existent.

Originally Posted by Green Cochoa
Keep in mind that I am far, far from being anti-KJV. I am much closer to being a KJV-onlyer, as you will learn if you read many of my posts in this forum.
Non-sequitur. I didn't mention anything about being an KJVO. By the way most people misdefine that anyway. I presented facts of the matter. I never said to ONLY use the KJB. What I stated was, that it is the inspired and presered word of God in English as the final authorty in all matters of faith and practice.

I didn't say (and never have said) that other translations (of English) could not be properly utilized, neither did I say that other than English translations could not be properly utilized.

What I have stated, is that the modern English translations contain some of the Bible, they are not the preserved word of God (Bible). They contain deep errors of Romanism and of the devil who sought to counterfeit the miracle of God in multiplying bread with his leaven (of sin) in it.

I even on occasion find it necessary to utilize the so called lxx of Origen, etal. to prove a point to those who accept that work. I do not accept that work as valid, but use it against them who do.

I even on occasion refer to Luther's German, Diodati's Italian, Olivetan's French, Valera's Spanish, Ufilias Gothic, Jerome's latin (and Vetus Latina) and more when necessary. I have even on occasion, when necessary, gone to individual codices (like even Aleph, A and B, etc) and papyri (P66, P75, etc), mss, lectionaries and so callef ECF (Easily Confused Fellows) to prove a point.

All of that does not mean I sanction all those works in their whole.

So to utilize the term "KJV-onlyer" is non-sequitur, and moreso it is used as a derogatory term. It is irrelevant to the discussion, and more importantly misunderstood by yourself, which may be demosntrated in asking you to define it, then I can respond to that definition.

Originally Posted by Green Cochoa
I use KJV almost strictly when doing any serious Bible study, especially in terms of doctrines.
Good, but irrelevant to our discussion. What you "use" is strictly your prerogative based upon your knowledge.

Originally Posted by Green Cochoa
But I am able to recognize that there are errors.
Wow, it must be something to be able to "recognize that there are errors" in God's inspired and preserved word. Since there are "errors", where can I find God's word without word errors? (Psalms 12:6-7, etc) I am not asking for corrupted versions, I want that which God spoke about.

If it is not in the King James Bible, where is it? Does it exist?

Originally Posted by Green Cochoa
I have stated in places that for every error in the KJV I could find ten errors, and more egregious ones, in the NIV.
That would then say you believe there is not any preserved word of God on earth that does not contain word errors. This is the real disagreement between us.

What you think you "could find" in the "KJV" (sic) as errors (listed in your reply) are not actually errors. I will demonstrate this in a bit.

Originally Posted by Green Cochoa
I like to call the latter the "Not Inspired Version" because its errors are so malignant.
Again, the personal saying is an over extension. All things are inspired, either of God or the devil. So to say that the NIV is the "Not Inspired Version", you really mean to say, the "Not Inspired (Of God) Version", which automatically makes it the Inspired of the Devil version (you said "malignant", meaning evil), proving my point earlier about differing streams (Jordan, and Euphrates) of Bibles.

Originally Posted by Green Cochoa
So please understand that I am not against the KJV when I point out some of its errors.
Yet, what you claim are "errors" are no such thing. You haven't even given me a standard by which to test yet. Where is the perfect measurement you are measuring against? Is it found in any one place? Can I hold a single copy in my hands?

This may help you:

What about the KJV by brother Sam Gipp:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QgmwAH4RaKE&list=PLL4itf8rGtj6-ct31MIft40btbdlI8lZQ
Posted By: Matthew 10vs8

Re: Bible Doctrines affected by Modern Versions - 07/17/21 03:04 PM

Originally Posted by Green Cochoa
You have asked for three each in the OT and the NT.
Indeed. I thought three a minimal requirement, since in the mouth of two or three witnesses let everything be "established".

Originally Posted by Green Cochoa
OLD TESTAMENT

Let's start with the Ten Commandments.

OT-1:

Originally Posted by The Holy Bible
Thou shalt not kill. (Exodus 20:13, KJV; Deuteronomy 5:17, KJV)


The word "kill" is a mistranslation.
You assert it (the word "kill") is a "mistranslation" (of the Masoretic Hebrew) by those who knew more languages than you do, and wrote dictionaries for languages and lexicons? Have you really studied the Translators of the King James Bible at all?

"... A. The first Westminster Company: Genesis - 2nd Kings

1. Lancelot Andrews, 1555 - 1626: Dr. Lancelot Andrews was Master of Pembroke, 1589; prebendary at St. Paul?s; Dean of Westminster, 1601; Bishop of Chichester, 1605; Bishop of Ely, 1609; member of the Privy Council, 1609 and Bishop of Winchester,1618. Dr. Andrews was also the first person named in the ?Order agreed upon for this Translation.?

a. ?Once a year, at Easter, he used to pass a month with his parents. During this vacation, he would find a master, from whom he learned some language to which he was a stranger. In this way after a few years, he acquired most of the modern languages of Europe.?29

b. ?He was not a man of ?head knowledge? only. He was a man of great practical preaching ability and an ardent opponent of Rome. His conspicuous talents soon gained him powerful patrons. Henry, Earl of Huntington, took him into the north of England, where he was the means of converting many Papists by his preaching and disputations.?30

c. ?As a preacher, Bishop Andrews was right famous in his day. He was called the ?star of preachers.??31

d. ?Many hours he spent each day in private and family devotions; and there were some who used to desire that ?they might end their days in Bishop Andrews? chapel.? He was one in whom was proved the truth of Luther?s saying, that ?to have prayed well, is to have studied well.??32

e. ?This worthy diocesan was much ?given to hospitality,? and especially to literary strangers. So bountiful was his cheer, that it used to be said, ?My Lord of Winchester keeps Christmas all year ?round.??33

f. ?But we are chiefly concerned to know what were his qualifications as a translator of the Bible. He ever bore the character of a ?right godly man,? and a ?prodigious student.? One competent judge speaks of him as ?that great gulf of learning?! It was also said, that ?the world wanted learning to know how learned this man was.? A brave, old chronicler remarks, that such was his skill in all languages, especially the Oriental, that had he been present at the confusion of tongues at Babel, he might have served as the Interpreter-General! In his funeral sermon by Dr. Buckridge, Bishop of Rochester, it is said that Dr. Andrews was conversant with fifteen languages.?34

2. John Overall, 1559 - 1619: Dr. Overall was; Regius Professor of Divinity at Cambridge, 1596; Master of Cathrine Hall, 1598; Dean of St. Paul?s, 1601; Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield, 1614; Bishop of Norwich, 1618 and a member of the Court of High Commission.

a. Dr. Overall was present at the hanging of the Jesuit Henry Garnet, mastermind of ?the Gunpowder Plot? and tried to lead him to Christ.35 Garnet died unrepentant.

b. Dr. Overall was vital to the translation because of his knowledge of quotations of the early church fathers which helped with the authentication of 1 John 5:7. This verse has a multitude of evidence among church fathers, though its manuscript evidence suffers from the attacks of Alexandria?s philosophers.

3. Hadrian Saravia, 1531 - 1613: Dr. Saravia was; professor of Divinity at Leyden, 1582; prebendary of Glouchester, 1595 and prebendary of Westminster in 1601. Dr. Hadrian Saravia was as evangelistic as he was scholarly.

a. McClure reports: ?He was sent by Queen Elizabeth?s council as a sort of missionary to the islands of Guernsey and Jersey, where he was one of the first Protestant ministers; knowing, as he says of himself, in a letter, ?which were the beginnings, and by what means and occasions the preaching of God?s Word was planted there.? He labored there in a two-fold capacity, doing the work of an evangelist, and conducting a newly established school, called Elizabeth College.?36

b. In 1611 he published a treatise on Papal primacy against the Jesuit Gretser.

c. He was ?educated in all kinds of literature in his younger days, especially several languages.?37

4. Richard Clarke, 15?? - 1634: Dr. Clarke had been fellow of Christ College, Cambridge; and was Vicar of Minster and Monkton, in the Isle of Thanet, at the time of the translation. He was one of the Six Preachers in the Cathedral of Canterbury. A volume of his sermons was published in folio, after his death, in 1637.

5. John Laifield, 15?? - 1617: Dr. John Laifield was; fellow of Trinity. He was the chaplain to the Earl of Cumberland during his voyage to Puerto Rico in 1598 and finally rector of St. Clement Danes?s, London in 1601.

a. Of him it was said: ?That being skilled in architecture, his judgment was much relied on for the fabric of the tabernacle and temple.?38

6. Robert Tighe, 15?? - 1620: Dr. Robert Tighe, Archdeacon of Middlesex, and Vicar of All Hallows Barking, was known as ?an excellent textuary and profound linguist; and therefore employed in the Translation of the Bible.?39

7. Francis Burleigh, 15?? - 16??: Vicar of Bishop?s Stortford.

8. Geoffry King, 15?? - 16??: Dr. King was fellow of King?s College, Cambridge, and succeeded Mr. Spalding as Regius Professor of Hebrew in that University. Dr. King was an ardent anti-papist.

9. Richard Thompson, 15?? - 1613: He was of Clare Hall, Cambridge.

10. William Bedwell, 1561 - 1632: Dr. William Bedwell was rector of St. Ethelburgh?s, Bishopsgate and later vicar of Tottenham High Cross, near London. Dr. Bedwell was one of the most remarkable scholars on the committee. He was famous as ?an eminent Oriental scholar.? His epitaph mentions that he was ?for the Eastern tongues, as learned a man as most lived in these modern times.? He was considered the principal Arabic scholar of his time. His intellectual feats were monumental.

a. ?He published in quarto an edition of the epistles of St. John in Arabic, with a Latin version, printed at the press of Raphelengius, at Antwerp, in 1612. He also left many Arabic manuscripts to the University of Cambridge, with numerous notes upon them, and a font of types of printing them. His fame for Arabic learning was so great, that when Erpenius, a most renowned Orientalist, resided in England in 1606, he was much indebted to Bedwell for direction in his studies.

To Bedwell, rather than to Erpenius, who commonly enjoys it, belongs the honor of being the first who considerably promoted and revived the study of the Arabic language and literature in Europe. He was also tutor to another Orientalist of renown, Dr. Pococke.?40

b. ?Some modern scholars have fancied, that we have an advantage in our times over the translators of King James? day, by reason of the greater attention which is supposed to be paid at present to what are called the ?cognate? and ?Shemitic? languages, and especially the Arabic by which much light is thought to be reflected upon Hebrew words and phrases. It is evident, however, that Mr. Bedwell and others, among his fellow-laborers, were thoroughly conversant in this part of the broad field of sacred criticism.?41

c. ?Dr. Bedwell also commenced a Persian dictionary, which is among Archbishop Laid?s manuscripts, still preserved in the Bodelian Library at Oxford. In 1615 he published his book, A Discovery of the Impostures of Mahomet and of the Koran. To this was annexed his Arabian Trudgeman.

d. ?Dr. Bedwell had a fondness for mathematical studies. He invented a ruler for geometrical purposes, like that we call Gunther?s Scale, which went by the name ?Bedwell?s Ruler?.

e. ?After Bedwell?s death, the voluminous manuscripts of his lexicon were loaned to the University of Cambridge to aid the compilation of Dr. Castell?s colossal work, the Lexicon Heptaglotton.?42 ..." - Sam Gipp's 24 Houyr Syllabus, page2 59-62 - https://archive.org/download/24-hour-syllabus/24%20Hour%20SYLLABUS.pdf

You think you are a better judge than they? What are your qualifications in comparision? Place your academics on the table for all to see with documentation please.

I personally think you are out of their league in such.

As for matters of translation, and others who thought they knew better in their own day, listen to this advice of the The first Oxford Company: Isaiah - Malachi, Dr. Richard Kilby :

"4. Richard Kilby, 1560 - 1620: Dr. Richard Kilby became the Rector of Lincoln College in 1590. He was Regius Professor of Divinity, 1610.

a. Dr. Kilby published commentaries on Exodus, chiefly formed from the monuments of the rabbis and Hebrew interpreters.

b. This incident, which occurred shortly after the Authorized Version had been published shows the dangers of changing even one word of God?s Book.

1) ?I must here stop my reader, and tell him that this Dr. Kilby was a man so great in learning and wisdom, and so excellent a critic in the Hebrew tongue, that he was made professor of it in this University; and as also so perfect a Grecian, that he was by King James appointed to be one of the translators of the Bible, and that this Doctor and Mr. Sanderson had frequent discourses, and loved as father and son. The Doctor was to ride a journey into Derbyshire, and took Mr. Sanderson to bear him company; and they resting on a Sunday with the Doctor?s friend, and going together to that parish church where they were, found the young preacher to have no more discretion than to waste a great part of the hour allotted for his sermon in exceptions against the late translation of several words, (not expecting such a hearer as Dr. Kilby) and showed three reasons why a particular word should have been otherwise translated. When evening prayer was ended, the preacher was invited to the Doctor?s friend?s house, where after some other confidence, the Doctor told him, he might have preached more useful doctrine, and not filled his auditor?s ears with needless exceptions against the translation; and for that word for which he offered to that poor congregation three reasons why it ought to have been translated as he and others had considered all of them, and found thirteen more considerable reasons why it was translated as now printed.?54
..." - Sam Gipp's 24 Houyr Syllabus, page 66 - https://archive.org/download/24-hour-syllabus/24%20Hour%20SYLLABUS.pdf

I think you also might benefit in the same area, going with useful doctrine, than trying to subjectively identify what you think is an "error" in translation.

"Kill" is perfectly valid. Why? Becuase God's Ten Commandments are eternal principles, they also exist in Heaven, and as such, even to take the life of one of God's lesser creatures (cat, dog, cow, etc) is to break the commandment, since He was the one who gave them all life.

The commandment is not simply against "murder" (which deals in only, or exclusively, things of mankind, or angel-kind). I could never say, not to "murder" a dog, a cat, a cow, etc. I could only say not to "kill" them.

Your finite human judgment is in error. What you "think" is an "error" in translation, is far superior in the context of scripture and of the Heavenly matters.

Did you even consult the KJB translators to understand why they did what they did, or did you just assume?

I think you might better serve your time "hav[ing] preached more useful doctrine, and not filled [your] auditor?s ears with needless exceptions against the translation; and for that word for which [you] offered to [me] [several] reasons why it ought to have been translated as [you] and others had considered all of them, and found [many] more considerable reasons why it was translated as now printed [in the KJB]"

You admitted that the NIV was "malignant". Do you think it might affect doctrine in the Ten Commandments, which would affect the doctrines of Heaven (3rd) also, especially in the New Heaven and New Earth (here) to merely address "murder" rather than "kill". Some persons I know of, teach that in the New Heavens and New Earth animal death continues, but not human death (since they are evolutionary minded and start in Genesis that way).

Yes, the NT does also give "thou shalt do no murder" (Matthew 19:18), but that was because Jesus was dealing with human beings, not addressing the killing of animals (for which at that time was still required for sacrifices). Murder is a form of killing. Yet not all killing is murder.

Do you think that the KJB translators were in confusion between the OT Ten Commandments and here or amongst themselves between companies, even with a final revision team? Do you know how many times they went over every single text in scripture? Do you know and understand the rules by which they worked, that translation was even given out to the whole church body?

Points 9-13 of their regulations:

"9. As any one Company hath dispatched any one Book in this Manner they shall send it to the rest, to be considered of seriously and judiciously, for His Majesty is very careful in this Point."

"10. If any Company, upon the Review of the Book so sent, doubt or differ upon any Place, to send them Word thereof; note the Place, and withal send the Reasons, to which if they consent not, the Difference to be compounded at the general Meeting, which is to be of the chief Persons of each Company, at the end of the Work."

"11. When any Place of special Obscurity is doubted of, Letters to be directed by Authority, to send to any Learned Man in the Land, for his Judgement of such a Place."

"12. Letters to be sent from every Bishop to the rest of his Clergy, admonishing them of this Translation in hand; and to move and charge as many skilful in the Tongues; and having taken pains in that kind, to send his particular Observations to the Company, either at Westminster, Cambridge, or Oxford."

"13. The Directors in each Company, to be the Deans of Westminster, and Chester for that Place; and the King?s Professors in the Hebrew or Greek in either University."

Never had such a work ever (and never has been since) been carried out.

Originally Posted by Green Cochoa
The NIV is superior in this text, saying "You shall not murder."
Entirely subjective, and proven, by scripture (above) to be erroneous. There is not merely to be no "murder" In Heaven (3rd), and in the New Heaven and New Earth, but no killing, of anything. Not a single creature is to die there, or then.

You over extended again. You made leaps in logic.

Originally Posted by Green Cochoa
The Hebrew word is "ratsach" which is translated almost everywhere else in the KJV as murder, manslaughter, etc.
Context always dictates how a word (like H7523) is translated. Not every context demands it to be the same way. This is the general pattern found throughout scripture and translation works.

Strong's Exhaustive even states that the primary definition is to "put to death", and "dash to pieces", which in certain contexts can mean murder, but not always.

Originally Posted by Green Cochoa
For some reason, specifically in the Ten Commandment, and in BOTH places (Exodus and Deuteronomy), they translated this as "kill."
That you do not know the reason, or understand that reason by those marvellous translators, does not mean they made an "error" where you knowledge ends and theirs continues.

Originally Posted by Green Cochoa
Hebrew has many words for kill and destroy
Yes, and this is one of them. God always uses multiple words to describe the same things, see Isaiah 43:7 to begin with:

Isa_43:7 Even every one that is called by my name: for I have created him for my glory, I have formed him; yea, I have made him.

created - H1254 - Bara
formed - H335 - Yatsar
made - H6213 - Asah

Three differing Hebrews words. All the meaning same thing. Just like our DNA, there are redundancies, or thesaurus like definitions in scripture.

That there are many words for the same thing, like "kill", does not negate that the word used in Exodus 20:13 does not also mean "kill".

Again, you have an over extension of argument.

Originally Posted by Green Cochoa
, and this unfortunate translation puts the Bible at odds with itself--creating a contradiction within God's Word.
No it doesn't at all. What you have is simple misunderstanding of individual contexts, and uses. That is your error, not the Bible translators error. It is also the argument that the Atheists use - https://atheistpapers.com/2014/06/23/bible-contradictions-39-is-it-ok-to-kill/

Most atheists have faulty logic to begin, denying the LORD God that created them to have intelligence in the first place.

Originally Posted by Green Cochoa


Originally Posted by The Bible
And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. (Leviticus 20:16)
First, a differing Hebrew word is used here, but even that word can mean murder also (Hosea 9:13; Jeremiah 4:31, etc), besides kill, so that is not the point. The point is that the context is known that it does not violate a commandment of God (Exodus 20:13) by another commandment of God through Moses (Leviticus 20:16). God does not contradict Himself even when the same words are used in differing places at differing times and differing circumstances.

It doesn't matter what other people "think" is, or even looks like, a contradiction. In scripture, there are no actual contradictions (John 10:35; 1 Corinthians 14:33, etc).

This book, though not perfect by any means (as it carries the authors personal (and incorrect) theology in some places), is very useful in that matter:

The "errors" of the King James Bible, by Peter S. Ruckman - https://archive.org/download/peter-...27%20in%20the%20King%20James%20Bible.pdf

Leviticus 20 deals with the matter under a fallen world condition, in which executive judgment is required.

Exodus 20, God's Ten Commandments deal with Eternal Principles, in Heaven (3rd) where even creatures are not to be killed (at all), and in the New Heaven and New Earth in which also there will be no killing of creatures either.

Rev_21:4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.

In other words you confused the eternal with the temporary. The Bible has no such confusion as exists in your mind, to think that there is an "error" in one, or a 'contradiction'.

I expect atheists to make this mistake, but not those filled with the Holy Spirit and have faith in God in that there are no contradictions in the inspired and preserved word of God. I personally think you simply borrowed this "error" from a "scholar" in a classroom, where faith has long been abandoned:

Mal_2:12 The LORD will cut off the man that doeth this, the master and the scholar, out of the tabernacles of Jacob, and him that offereth an offering unto the LORD of hosts.

In other words, your misunderstanding, is not an actual "error".

Originally Posted by Green Cochoa
According to the KJV mistranslation of this important commandment, God later asks the people to break it.
Not at all. That is a misuse and misreading of the text itself in proper context and history. It does not consider the eternal nature of the Ten Commandments.

Originally Posted by Green Cochoa
And if one were to broaden the "kill" to animals, in addition to people, then the commandment to kill for each of the sacrificial offers also breaks the Ten Commandments.
Again, not at all. The same rules apply as the previous. Eternal and temporary requirements, both of which are commanded by God.

As for instance, God in the beginning gave the commandment to man and beast:

Gen 1:29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
Gen 1:30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.

Then later also gave as a temporary measure:

Gen 9:3 Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.
Gen 9:4 But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.
Gen 9:5 And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man's brother will I require the life of man.
Gen 9:6 Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.

Contradiction? No. It is the same as the examples you provided. Even now we are not to kill animals for food.

See the sermon "DIE at the T" by this palagi:

https://www.bitchute.com/video/Vp7tDnBv88HI/

also here, with powerpoint:

https://archive.org/details/die-at-the-t_202006

https://archive.org/download/die-at-the-t/DIE%20at%20the%20T.pptx

Originally Posted by Green Cochoa
Obviously, this is a significant error,
No it isn't and you did not prove any such point. What you did, was prove you do not understand the greater context of eternal and temporary things.

Originally Posted by Green Cochoa
and very important to doctrinal truth.
The truth is still there, plain for any who compare spiritual things with spiritual (1 Corinthians 213), and line upon line (Isaiah 28:10,13).

Originally Posted by Green Cochoa
This is not merely a misplaced comma
I assume you refer to at least Luke 23:43 KJB?

Luk_23:43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.

I have an entire study on this text an the comma is most definitely not misplaced. It is missing a comma. I can prove what I say from scripture (KJB) itself.

I never said that there were not punctuational issues, left over from editional correction (like from 1611 to 1769) that still exist. I claimed that God's "words" were preserved (Psalms 12:6-7).

Like I said, I do not think you understand my actual position, and have an imaginary KJVO'er definition in mind. Yet, that remains to be demonstrated yet, you will need to define what you mean when you say it.

Originally Posted by Green Cochoa
nor a misspelling of someone's name (there are many of those, of course).
Oh man (sigh). Really? I hope you are way more careful this time around in demonstrating three examples from the OT and three examples from the NT. I am definitely going to prove you in error at this point, having heard this before. Yet, go ahead and give your examples, I will consider them diligently and separately from anything I have heard before, then make judgment.

Even if a misspelling were to occur and be demonstrated in evidence, that is not a demonstration of error in the "words of God" themselves. For instance, "sonne" is still "son" though they are spelled differently.

I do not think you understood my argument at all. You are making non equative errors. In other words the fallacy of apples to oranges.
Posted By: Matthew 10vs8

Re: Bible Doctrines affected by Modern Versions - 07/17/21 03:06 PM

Originally Posted by Green Cochoa
OT-2:

Originally Posted by The Holy Bible
Yea, he magnified himself even to the prince of the host, and by him the daily sacrifice was taken away, and the place of the sanctuary was cast down. (Daniel 8:11, KJV)

And an host was given him against the daily sacrifice by reason of transgression, and it cast down the truth to the ground; and it practised, and prospered. (Daniel 8:12, KJV)

Then I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said unto that certain saint which spake, How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot? (Daniel 8:13, KJV)

And arms shall stand on his part, and they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily sacrifice, and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate. (Daniel 11:31, KJV)

And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days. (Daniel 12:11, KJV)


I don't need to say much about this error, because Mrs. White, under inspiration, tells us about it.
You should, because you misuse (ignorantly) sister White here. She never says that in those places it is in "error". What she (as all the pioneers) states is, that the word "sacrifice" is (catch this) "supplied" by the translators ("men's wisdom"). She does not say "erroneously supplied" by the translators. It was in fact, meant as an help by the translators to identify the "daily" under consideration.

I have an entire study on this here:

The Daily Daily (with Pictures):

https://archive.org/download/the-daily-daily/The%20Daily%20Daily.pdf

The King James Translators even included such things in (catch this) "italics", and in some editions, smaller Roman type font (AV1611), or brackets. It means that they understood that the word was not original to the text itself, and were simply helping the readers understand the context to which it does indeed belong. It is just that "sacrifice" is only a part of the daily, not it's whole.

This is not an error. It's a supplied word, and knowingly so. That people took that help, and misused it (which was the problem dealing with the "daily" texts of Daniel) is their error, not the error of the King James Translators in their helpful suggestion (which is what most italics are).

"... In fact, the words in italics in the King James Bible are words that were added by the translators to help the reader. ...

... Clearly, the words in italics were not miraculously given to the translators by God as additional inspiration the same way He did as recorded in 2 Peter 1:21, ?holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.? Neither are the italics there to add emphasis. The words in italics in the King James Bible are words that were added by the translators to help the reader better understand the intent of the passage translated from the original languages." - The King James Bible Research Council - https://kjbrc.org/the-use-of-italics-in-the-king-james-bible/

Did you know that even in the NT where nearly half of a verse is in italics, was later found to be original to the koine Greek?

1Jn 2:23 Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.

"... πᾶς ὁ ἀρνούμενος τὸν υἱὸν οὐδὲ τὸν πατέρα ἔχει, ὁ ὁμολογῶν τὸν υἱὸν καὶ τὸν πατέρα ἔχει.

01. 02. 03. 04. 025. 044. 5. 33. 61. 94. 104. 206. 218. 252. 254. 307. 321. 323. 326. 378C. 398. 429. 436. 442. 453. 459. 467C. 468. 522. 614. 621. 623. 630. 720. 808. 918. 996. 1067. 1127. 1243. 1292. 1359. 1409. 1448. 1490. 1505. 1523. 1524. 1563. 1611. 1661. 1678. 1718. 1735. 1739. 1751. 1799. 1831. 18372. 18382. 1842. 1844f. 1852. 1881. 2138. 2147. 2200. 2298. 2344. 2374. 2412. 2464. 2541. 2544. 2652. 2805. 2818. L596. L1281. Ath. Cyr. CyrH. Or. K:S>BV>. S:P>H. A. G:A1. Sl.Si. ?..." - https://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2018/04/two-important-shorter-byzantine.html

Beware of saying that Italics are ever "error", for it is mostly subjective opinion at work, and again sister White never said that the word "sacrifice" was "error", but instead she rightly noted that it was "supplied" and does not belong in the text (meaning it is not original in the Masoretic Hebrew).

For more on italics, see:

https://av1611.com/kjbp/faq/italics.html

https://www.biblebelievers.com/jmelton/italics.html

https://archive.org/download/sam-gi...%20Helpful%20Book%20for%20Christians.pdf

Some OT and NT texts utilize Italics and are definitely not error, for instance in Exodus 8:21,22,24,29,31 the word "flies" is always supplied by the KJB translators. Why not swarms of "bees" or "mosquitoes", or something else, why "flies"? It is always found in italics. Though the word is not found in the original Masoretic Hebrew, is it "error"? Absolutely not. It is properly supplied, in the light of Psalms 78:45. What did the writer of Psalms 78:45 know that was not in the original texts of Exodus 8?

Numerous examples could be provided.

The word "sacrifice" was indeed in connection to the word "daily" in the OT texts (Numbers 28:24, 29:6; Hebrews 7:27, etc as shown in the Daily Daily study). That the KJB translators supplied the word (not part of the text, Masoretic Hebrew), was merely meant as an help to the reader to identify those places and connection to the sanctuary work, as the context of Daniel 8-11 require.

That does not make it an error of the KJB translators. It makes it the error of thoe who misuse their help. One can simply ignore their help if they so choose.

Originally Posted by Green Cochoa


Originally Posted by Ellen White
Then I saw in relation to the "daily" (Daniel 8:12) that the word "sacrifice" was supplied by man's wisdom, and does not belong to the text, and that the Lord gave the correct view of it to those who gave the judgment hour cry. When union existed, before 1844, nearly all were united on the correct view of the "daily"; but in the confusion since 1844, other views have been embraced, and darkness and confusion have followed. Time has not been a test since 1844, and it will never again be a test. {EW 74.2}



Again, see my previous point. Ellen White said, "supplied by man's wisdom", which all acknowledge that it was, including the KJB translators themselves, which is why they honestly placed in italics. Ellen White said, "does not belong to the text". Notice, "text", not "translation" of the text. Ellen White made no comment about it being in error in translation. She was simply stating the obvious to those who were confused. Again see the Daily Daily study itself which demonstrates this beyond and doubt.

Originally Posted by Green Cochoa
The fact is, the definite article "the" precedes the adverb "daily" in the original Hebrew without a noun being present.
Yes, the Masoretic Hebrew has a defintie article before ~ "ha". That is not in argument, nor contention. It is also non-sequitur to my response to you. Going throughout any given translation work, things like that occur where definite (and also indefiniteness) articles appear and disappear. This happens in the translation of the Masoretic Hebrew into English (in any translation) and it happens going from the koine Greek to the English also (see John 1:1b) for intsance, "ton theon" (the God). Sometimes definite articles are added (rather than removed) in going from one previous language to another (see Johhn 1:2a), "The same". This is because sometimes in English it would sound funny to the readers or hearers to say, as in John 1:1b, 'and the word was with the God', or 'same was in beginning' (John 1:2).

Those aren't "error" either. They are translation choices to make the reading more simple, obvious, apparent or straitforward. "Man's wisdom" in this case, for certain. That it "Does not belong to the text", a given. Never does it say "error" in the SoP/TOJ in regards to it. Just as "man's wisdom" intended it as a help, it was "man's wisdom" that was messing it up.

The word "daily" is used as a noun in Daniel 8,11-12 and so it is "present". Even sister White capitalizes the word "Daily" in her materials in two locations, ExV 61.2 (x2) & RH, November 1, 1850 par. 11. You can see this in the Daily Daily study, or look for it yourself in the materials.

Originally Posted by Green Cochoa
The translators felt it necessary, grammatically, to add a noun, which they did with "sacrifice."


The translators did not supply the word "sacrifice" to take care of the definite article. They can clearly see the definite article in the Masoretic Hebrew is connected to "daily", being used as a noun, "haTamiyd". They can easily read the verses I provided already. Also this is widely known, for even the TSK (Treasury of Scripture Knowledge; 1830) has verses which link to Daniel 8:11,12,13, 11:31, 12:11, such as "the daily: Dan_8:12, Dan_11:31, Dan_12:11; Exo_29:38-42; Num_28:3; Eze_46:14" (TSK, E-Sword edition). Those other than Daniel verses, all point to the ministry of the sanctuary, which included "sacrifice".

Where did you get your information from? Which translator of the First Oxford Company (translating Isaiah to Malachi; being John Harding, John Reynolds (Rainolds), Thomas Holland, Richard Kilby, Miles Smith, Richard Brett, Richard Fairclough (Fareclowe) ** see below) provided the information you gave? I want a direct source and citation.

**
"... The first Oxford Company: Isaiah - Malachi

1. John Harding, 15?? - 16??: John Harding was the Regius Professor of Hebrew in 1591 and President of Magdalen College; and also Rector of Halsey in Oxfordshire. It was said of him, ?At the time of his appointment to aid in the translation of the Bible, he had been Royal Professor of Hebrew in the University for thirteen years. His occupancy of that chair, at a time when the study of sacred literature was pursued by thousands with a zeal amounting to a possession, is a fair intimation that Dr. Harding was the man for the post he occupied.?50

2. John Reynolds (Rainolds), 1549 - 1607: Dr. John Reynolds was fellow of Corpus Christi College, 1566 and later became President of Corpus Christi in 1598; Dean of Lincoln, 1593. He was primarily responsible, in the Conference at Hampton Court, for moving the King for a new Translation. He died May 21, 1607 before the work was completed.

a. Dr. Reynolds had been raised a Roman Catholic. As Chaderton, he too trusted Christ and became a Puritan.

b. ?Determined to explore the whole field and make himself master of the subject, he devoted himself to the study of the Scriptures in the original tongues, and read all the Greek and Latin fathers, and all the ancient records of the Church.?51

c. ?About the year 1578, John Hart, a popish zealot, challenged all the learned men in the nation to a public debate. At the solicitation of one of Queen Elizabeth?s privy counselors, Mr. Reynolds encountered him. After several combats, the Romish champion owned himself driven from the field.?

d. ?At that time, the celebrated Cardinal Bellarmine, the Goliath of the Philistines at Rome, was professor of theology in the English Seminary at that city. As fast as he delivered his popish doctrine, it was taken down in writing, and regularly sent to Dr. Reynolds; who from time to time, publicly confuted it at Oxford. Thus Bellarmine?s books were answered, even before they were printed.?52

e. ?The papists started a report, that their famous opposer had recanted his Protestant sentiments. He was much grieved at hearing of the rumor; but too feeble to speak, set his name to the following declaration: ?These are to testify to all the world, that I die in the possession of that faith which I have taught all my life, both in my preachings and in my writings, with an assured hope of my salvation, only by the merits of Christ my Savior.??53

3. Thomas Holland, 1539 - 1612: Dr. Holland was then fellow of Balliol College, Oxford; chaplain to the Earl of Leichester in the Netherlands in 1585; Regius Professor of Divinity in Oxford, 1589 and afterwards Rector of Exeter College, 1592. It was said of him that he was, ?another Apollos, mighty in the Scriptures.?

Dr. Holland was a fiery Puritan and dedicated anti-Catholic who ended his sermons with the words, ?I commend you to the love of God and to the hatred of all popery and superstition.?

4. Richard Kilby, 1560 - 1620: Dr. Richard Kilby became the Rector of Lincoln College in 1590. He was Regius Professor of Divinity, 1610.

a. Dr. Kilby published commentaries on Exodus, chiefly formed from the monuments of the rabbis and Hebrew interpreters.

b. This incident, which occurred shortly after the Authorized Version had been published shows the dangers of changing even one word of God?s Book.

1) ?I must here stop my reader, and tell him that this Dr. Kilby was a man so great in learning and wisdom, and so excellent a critic in the Hebrew tongue, that he was made professor of it in this University; and as also so perfect a Grecian, that he was by King James appointed to be one of the translators of the Bible, and that this Doctor and Mr. Sanderson had frequent discourses, and loved as father and son. The Doctor was to ride a journey into Derbyshire, and took Mr. Sanderson to bear him company; and they resting on a Sunday with the Doctor?s friend, and going together to that parish church where they were, found the young preacher to have no more discretion than to waste a great part of the hour allotted for his sermon in exceptions against the late translation of several words, (not expecting such a hearer as Dr. Kilby) and showed three reasons why a particular word should have been otherwise translated. When evening prayer was ended, the preacher was invited to the Doctor?s friend?s house, where after some other confidence, the Doctor told him, he might have preached more useful doctrine, and not filled his auditor?s ears with needless exceptions against the translation; and for that word for which he offered to that poor congregation three reasons why it ought to have been translated as he and others had considered all of them, and found thirteen more considerable reasons why it was translated as now printed.?54

5. Miles Smith, 1554 - 1624: At the time of the translation Dr. Smith was a Canon of Hereford, afterwards Bishop of Gloucester in 1612. Dr. Smith had a great wealth of knowledge concerning the Greek and Latin fathers. He was also expert in Chaldean, Syriac, and Arabic that he could carry on conversations in these difficult languages. It was also said, ?Hebrew he had at his finger?s end.?55 He read every book in his own library. Dr. Miles Smith wrote the preface to the King James Bible.

6. Richard Brett, 1567 - 1645: Dr. Brett was fellow of Lincoln College and Rector of Quainton, in Buckinghamshire in 1595. He was a noted scholar of Greek, Hebrew, Latin, Aramaic, Chaldean, Arabic and Ethiopian.

7. Richard Fairclough (Fareclowe), 1578 - 1645: Mr. Fairclough, was of New College; fellow of Corpus Christi, 1602; vicar of Lambeth, All Hallows, Bread Street and Acton. ..." 24 Hour King James Bible Syllabus by Dr. Sam Gipp, pages 64-67 - https://archive.org/download/24-hour-syllabus/24%20Hour%20SYLLABUS.pdf

Originally Posted by Green Cochoa
But, while this is indeed unusual grammar for Hebrew, it is not unheard of. Even in English we sometimes break the usual rules for articles preceding nouns by having the article before an adjective or an adverb instead.
All speculation based upon your unproven assumption and undocumented assertion that the translators (KJB; first Oxford Company specifically) added it because of "ha" (definite article). It is non-sequitur.

Originally Posted by Green Cochoa

For example: "The less the better." Why do we have "the" in this phrase? To emphasize something...and it turns that something into a noun which ordinarily would not have been a noun. The same should be true in these texts in Daniel.


Non-sequitur. Hebrew is also way different than English, and not merely in directional reading, or script.

Originally Posted by Green Cochoa
By the way, scholars largely agree that the book of Daniel presents the most difficult level of Hebrew of any in the Old Testament.
Assuming their modern day level of skill in translation is any near the level of the men of the KJB translators (I generally do not accept that as true, based upon several Biblical reasons, never - the - less), that the statement is truly representative of facts, and not mere opinion (because of the prophecy that is contained therein and what it would mean to properly translate it as the KJB had, for the modern day "Jews" (Sephardic and Ashkenazic) understand it just fine, and have a curse on Daniel, see - https://amazingdiscoveries.org/AD-Header-Downloads-References-RabbinicCurse ), then what does it have to do with "error"? Merely being difficult to translate, does not mean impossible to translate to breed error or merely academic guessing/hypotheses. It would mean, taking that logic to conclusion, is that all modern translations of Daniel, in any laguage from the Hebrew would be in error at some point following that logic. It's silly and self-contradictory. God did not give the Hebrew in the OT (or even koine Greek of the NT) times so that we could not know it today. God gave languages (like Hebrew, 'Syriack' and koine Greek), and the "interpretation of tongues (languages)" (1 Corinthians 12:10) as gifts to His church. The men of the KJB translation committees were first rank Christians of a holier sort than generally exist today, and had such "gifts" from God, as seen in their historical bios, and personal diaries, histories that still exist.

Difficulty does not equal to automatic error. It doesn't even imply error. It simply implies challenge, a greater student of God and the Holy Ghost needful. The Holy Ghost, who gives the gifts (like interpretation) would lead such into "all truth". God's people were never without light, especially when they were in harmony with His will, and praying unto Him for guidance.

Originally Posted by Green Cochoa
So this KJV error regarding "the daily" is attested by Ellen White.
No. You added to her words. She never said "error", nor implied it. I already went over what she said.

Originally Posted by Green Cochoa
This error of the Wycliffe and KJV was propagated to virtually all English Bibles today.
Do you realize it existed as an idea long before Wycliffe, and or the KJB translators?

It is possible (though not yet provable - http://www.wulfila.be/gothic/browse/ ) that Ulfilias (Wulfilia, &c) Gothic Bible contained something similar, though at present only a small fragment of the OT survives, that of Nehemiah. However, it is not improbable considering the connection the Ulfilias Bible had with other similar translations. Yet, that is neither here nor there, just an interesting thought, that one day might be helpful to consider, since quite a bit of it still exists in the language of the King James English.

It does exist in the Latin Vulgate, "sacrificium":

Dan 8:11 et usque ad principem fortitudinis magnificatus est et ab eo tulit iuge sacrificium et deiecit locum sanctificationis eius

Dan 8:12 robur autem datum est contra iuge sacrificium propter peccata et prosternetur veritas in terra et faciet et prosperabitur

Dan 8:13 et audivi unum de sanctis loquentem et dixit unus sanctus alteri nescio cui loquenti usquequo visio et iuge sacrificium et peccatum desolationis quae facta est et sanctuarium et fortitudo conculcabitur

Dan 11:31 et brachia ex eo stabunt et polluent sanctuarium fortitudinis et auferent iuge sacrificium et dabunt abominationem in desolationem

Dan 12:11 et a tempore cum ablatum fuerit iuge sacrificium et posita fuerit abominatio in desolatione dies mille ducenti nonaginta

It even exists in what some call the LXX (Septuagint, though no such thing actually exists (but is really Origen's Hexapla, circa 180's - 250's AD), but they say it does, and even existing before the NT times!!! (nonsense, but that's what they say based upon the discredited Letter of Aristeas!!!), (vs 11) "thusia" (G2378; sacrifice), (vs 12) "thusian", (vs 13) "thusia":

Dan 8:11 καὶ ἕως οὗ ὁ ἀρχιστράτηγος ῥύσηται τὴν αἰχμαλωσίαν, καὶ δι᾿ αὐτὸν θυσία ἐρράχθη, καὶ ἐγενήθη καὶ κατευοδώθη αὐτῷ, καὶ τὸ ἅγιον ἐρημωθήσεται·

Dan 8:12 καὶ ἐδόθη ἐπὶ τὴν θυσίαν ἁμαρτία, καὶ ἐρρίφη χαμαὶ ἡ δικαιοσύνη, καὶ ἐποίησεν καὶ εὐοδώθη.

Dan 8:13 καὶ ἤκουσα ἑνὸς ἁγίου λαλοῦντος, καὶ εἶπεν εἷς ἅγιος τῷ φελμουνι τῷ λαλοῦντι Ἕως πότε ἡ ὅρασις στήσεται, ἡ θυσία ἡ ἀρθεῖσα καὶ ἡ ἁμαρτία ἐρημώσεως ἡ δοθεῖσα, καὶ τὸ ἅγιον καὶ ἡ δύναμις συμπατηθήσεται;

It even exists in non-English translations, like Luther's German (1545), "das t?gliche Opfer". Opfer is "sacrifice", and he didn't even place it into Italics.

It exists in the French Ostervald (1744), "le sacrifice continuel" (Daniel 8:11, etc).

It exists in the Spanish Reina Valera (1569), in italics, "el continuo sacrificio" (Daniel 8:11, etc).

It exists in the Genevan (1587), "the dayly sacrifice" (Daniel 8:11, etc).

It exists in the Bishop's (1658) in brackets, "the dayly [sacrifice]" (Daniel 8:11, etc).

Was it supplied by "man's wisdom". Yep. No doubt. The word "sacrifice" is not present as a word in any Masoretic Hebrew text:

Dan 8:11 ועד שׂר־הצבא הגדיל וממנו הרים התמיד והשׁלך מכון מקדשׁו׃

Dan 8:12 וצבא תנתן על־התמיד בפשׁע ותשׁלך אמת ארצה ועשׂתה והצליחה׃

Dan 8:13 ואשׁמעה אחד־קדושׁ מדבר ויאמר אחד קדושׁ לפלמוני המדבר עד־מתי החזון התמיד והפשׁע שׁמם תת וקדשׁ וצבא מרמס׃

Dan 11:31 וזרעים ממנו יעמדו וחללו המקדשׁ המעוז והסירו התמיד ונתנו השׁקוץ משׁומם׃

Dan 12:11 ומעת הוסר התמיד ולתת שׁקוץ שׁמם ימים אלף מאתים ותשׁעים׃

Transliterated:

8:11 w'ad sar-haTZ?v? hig'Diyl ?miMeN? *h?riym [h?ram] haT?miyd w'hush'lakh' m'kh?n miq'D?sh?

8:12 w'tz?v? TiN?t?n al-haT?miyd B'f?sha w'tash'l?kh' ?met ar'tz?h w'?s't?h w'hitz'liych?h

8:13 w?esh'm'?h ech?d-q?d?sh m'daB?r waYomer ech?d q?d?sh laPal'm?niy ham'daB?r ad-m?tay hech?z?n haT?miyd w'haPesha shom?m T?t w'qodesh w'tz?v? mir'm??

11:31 ?z'roiym miMeN? ya?mod? w'chiL'l? haMiq'D?sh haM??z w'h??iyr? haT?miyd w'n?t'n? haSHiQ?tz m'sh?m?m

12:11 ?m??t h??ar haT?miyd w'l?t?t shiQ?tz shom?m y?miym elef m?tayim w'tish'iym

They all just say "haTamiyd". No disagreement there whatsoever. That the word "sacrifice" "Does not belong to the text" is obvious since it is nowhere present in Hebrew.

Does that make the word in the English of the KJB an "error"? No. The KJB never said they were translating the word "sacrifice" from the Masoretic Hebrew. How could it be an error in translation? (You might say, you never said it was an error in translation. Fine. You still say it is an error in general? Based upon what, sister White's statement who never used that word ("error" in this context) or implied it?) It was simply a supplied word, as admitted by all (even the KJB who placed it into differing font (later Italics) meant as an help that was being misunderstood and misused.

You are going to sit there an say that the KJB, in Daniel 8:11,12,13, 11:31, and 12:11 has an "error" based on that reasoning? Then as you have said, nearly all English translations have the same "error" (as you call it) and nearly ever other language "translation" as well as far back as one looks nearly as can be seen. Are all translators (even beyond the KJB to modern day ones) so ignorant of the facts?, to retain it (even as you admit) as an "error"? - https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Daniel%208:11

Then all Bibles are erroneous from the so called LXX, to the Latin to Wycliffe to KJB, to RV, ASV, NIV, TNIV, etc, the German, French, Spanish, and so on. Do you really think that what was sister White intended by her statements? I hope not. I think you over extneded sister White's statement, like you over extend several other things.

Originally Posted by Green Cochoa
YLT and Darby each put the word "sacrifice" in square brackets, indicating it was an addition to the text--but still leave it there, just the same. Many modern translations have taken it a step farther in substituting "burnt offering" for the word "sacrifice." The MSG translation says "daily worship"--an interesting variation. But the entire text seems to have been translated poorly if one looks at in Hebrew. There are at least two other points in it where variations could make a big difference.
They were not translating the word from any Hebrew text. They were all "supplying" the word, as they all nearly (some exceptions) admit in print, by brackets, italics, change of font, etc. The translation isn't poor. They all do a pretty good job. The "poor", is where the help meant by each ("man's wisdom"), is over extended.

The second example that you gave doesn't shown an "error" in translation, or "error" in general, either.
Posted By: Matthew 10vs8

Re: Bible Doctrines affected by Modern Versions - 07/17/21 03:06 PM

Originally Posted by Green Cochoa


OT-3:

Originally Posted by The Holy Bible
And Abraham lifted up his eyes, and looked, and behold behind him a ram caught in a thicket by his horns: and Abraham went and took the ram, and offered him up for a burnt offering in the stead of his son. (Genesis 22:13, KJV)


The English "behind" here was mistranslated from the Hebrew, which should say, instead "white." The word "him" in English was entirely supplied--it is not in the Hebrew text. In other words, "a white ram" is what the text says. Something about the similarity of the word root with another Hebrew word causes most translators to see it as a preposition or a conjunction instead of as an adjective "white" here, and virtually all translations have gone the wrong direction, KJV included. This particular detail, which some might consider unimportant, was highlighted in my Hebrew class one day as Yahuda Cohen, the Jewish professor, made a special point of explaining it. He is a traditional Jew who does not accept Jesus as the Messiah, but he still recognized the truth that the "white" color represents the purity and sinlessness of our Substitute.

While I was unable to find an English translation using the word "white" in translating this phrase, many omit "behind" and some add "single," as in "a single ram." There must be some ambiguity to the word to allow for these variations. So perhaps our KJV translators can be excused here, as they are in good company. On the other hand, it might be that the KJV is what influenced all later translations away from a more accurate representation.

Well, as you might not accept this particular error, as it is not attested by other versions, nor by Ellen White, I will add another one.
Why did you even bother with this one, when it shoots your own argument in the foot? You cannot even provide evidence of "white" as a translation. Where did you get your translation ("white") from?

Gen 22:13 (8th word from left, "אחר") וישׂא אברהם את־עיניו וירא והנה־איל אחר נאחז בסבך בקרניו וילך אברהם ויקח את־האיל ויעלהו לעלה תחת בנו׃

Gen 22:13 Transliterated (8th word from right, "achar") - waYiS? av'r?h?m et-?yn?yw waYar' w'hiN?h-ayil achar ne?chaz Ba?'vakh' B'qar'n?yw waY?lekh' av'r?h?m waYiQach et-h?ayil waYa?l?h? l'ol?h Tachat B'n?

The Masoretic Hebrew, H310, 'achar occurs:

Total KJV Occurrences: 691
after, 485
Gen_5:4 (2), Gen_5:7, Gen_5:10, Gen_5:13, Gen_5:16, Gen_5:19, Gen_5:22, Gen_5:26, Gen_5:30, Gen_6:4, Gen_9:9, Gen_9:28, Gen_10:1, Gen_10:32, Gen_11:10-11 (2), Gen_11:13, Gen_11:15, Gen_11:17, Gen_11:19, Gen_11:21, Gen_11:23, Gen_11:25, Gen_13:14, Gen_14:17, Gen_15:1, Gen_16:13, Gen_17:7-10 (5), Gen_17:19, Gen_18:5, Gen_18:12, Gen_18:19, Gen_19:6, Gen_22:1, Gen_22:20, Gen_23:19, Gen_24:55, Gen_24:67, Gen_25:11, Gen_25:26, Gen_26:18, Gen_31:23, Gen_31:36, Gen_33:7, Gen_35:5, Gen_35:12, Gen_37:17, Gen_39:7, Gen_40:1, Gen_41:3, Gen_41:6, Gen_41:19, Gen_41:23, Gen_41:27, Gen_41:30, Gen_44:4, Gen_45:15, Gen_48:1, Gen_48:4, Gen_48:6, Gen_50:14, Exo_3:20, Exo_7:25, Exo_10:14, Exo_11:8, Exo_14:4, Exo_14:8-10 (3), Exo_14:23, Exo_14:28, Exo_15:20, Exo_23:2 (2), Exo_28:43, Exo_29:29, Exo_33:8, Exo_34:15-16 (3), Lev_13:7, Lev_13:35, Lev_13:55-56 (2), Lev_14:8, Lev_14:43 (3), Lev_14:48, Lev_15:28, Lev_16:1, Lev_17:7, Lev_20:5-6 (3), Lev_25:15, Lev_25:46, Lev_25:48, Lev_26:33, Lev_27:3, Lev_27:18, Num_4:15, Num_6:19-20 (2), Num_7:88, Num_8:15, Num_8:22, Num_9:17, Num_12:14, Num_15:39 (2), Num_25:8, Num_25:13, Num_26:1, Num_32:15 (2), Num_35:28, Deu_1:4, Deu_1:8, Deu_4:37, Deu_4:40, Deu_6:14, Deu_8:19, Deu_10:15, Deu_11:4, Deu_11:28, Deu_12:25, Deu_12:28, Deu_12:30, Deu_13:2, Deu_13:4, Deu_21:13, Deu_24:4, Deu_28:14, Deu_29:22, Deu_31:16, Deu_31:27, Deu_31:29, Jos_1:1, Jos_2:5, Jos_2:7 (2), Jos_3:3, Jos_6:9, Jos_6:13, Jos_8:6, Jos_8:16-17 (3), Jos_9:16, Jos_10:14, Jos_10:19, Jos_20:5, Jos_22:27, Jos_23:1, Jos_24:6, Jos_24:20, Jos_24:29, Jdg_1:1, Jdg_1:6, Jdg_2:10, Jdg_2:17, Jdg_3:22, Jdg_3:28 (2), Jdg_3:31, Jdg_4:14, Jdg_4:16 (2), Jdg_5:14, Jdg_6:34-35 (2), Jdg_7:23, Jdg_8:5, Jdg_8:12, Jdg_8:27, Jdg_8:33, Jdg_10:1, Jdg_10:3, Jdg_12:8, Jdg_12:11, Jdg_12:13, Jdg_13:11, Jdg_15:7, Jdg_19:3, Jdg_20:45, Rth_1:15-16 (2), Rth_2:2-3 (2), Rth_2:7, Rth_2:9, Rth_4:4, 1Sa_5:9 (3), 1Sa_6:12, 1Sa_8:2-3 (2), 1Sa_11:5 (2), 1Sa_11:7 (2), 1Sa_12:21, 1Sa_13:4, 1Sa_14:12-13 (3), 1Sa_14:22, 1Sa_14:36-37 (2), 1Sa_15:31, 1Sa_17:35, 1Sa_17:53, 1Sa_22:20, 1Sa_23:25, 1Sa_23:28, 1Sa_24:8, 1Sa_24:14 (4), 1Sa_24:21, 1Sa_25:13, 1Sa_25:19, 1Sa_25:42, 1Sa_26:3, 1Sa_26:18, 1Sa_30:8, 2Sa_1:1, 2Sa_1:10, 2Sa_2:1, 2Sa_2:19, 2Sa_2:24-25 (2), 2Sa_2:28, 2Sa_3:26, 2Sa_5:13, 2Sa_7:12, 2Sa_13:1 (3), 2Sa_13:17-18 (2), 2Sa_15:1, 2Sa_15:13, 2Sa_17:1, 2Sa_17:21, 2Sa_18:16, 2Sa_18:22, 2Sa_20:2, 2Sa_20:6-7 (3), 2Sa_20:10-11 (2), 2Sa_20:13-14 (3), 2Sa_21:1, 2Sa_21:14, 2Sa_21:18, 2Sa_23:9-11 (3), 2Sa_24:10, 1Ki_1:6, 1Ki_1:13-14 (2), 1Ki_1:17, 1Ki_1:20, 1Ki_1:24, 1Ki_1:27, 1Ki_1:30, 1Ki_1:35, 1Ki_1:40, 1Ki_2:28 (2), 1Ki_3:12, 1Ki_9:21, 1Ki_11:2, 1Ki_11:4-6 (4), 1Ki_11:10, 1Ki_13:14, 1Ki_13:23 (2), 1Ki_13:31, 1Ki_13:33, 1Ki_15:4, 1Ki_17:17, 1Ki_19:11-12 (3), 1Ki_19:20-21 (2), 1Ki_20:15, 1Ki_21:1, 2Ki_1:1, 2Ki_5:20-21 (3), 2Ki_6:24, 2Ki_7:14-15 (2), 2Ki_9:25, 2Ki_9:27, 2Ki_10:29, 2Ki_14:17, 2Ki_14:19, 2Ki_14:22, 2Ki_17:15, 2Ki_18:5, 2Ki_23:3, 2Ki_23:25, 2Ki_25:5, 1Ch_5:24-25 (2), 1Ch_10:2 (2), 1Ch_11:12, 1Ch_14:14, 1Ch_17:11, 1Ch_19:1 (2), 1Ch_20:4, 1Ch_27:7, 1Ch_27:34, 1Ch_28:8, 2Ch_1:12, 2Ch_2:17, 2Ch_8:8, 2Ch_11:16, 2Ch_11:20, 2Ch_13:19, 2Ch_20:1, 2Ch_20:35, 2Ch_21:18, 2Ch_24:4 (2), 2Ch_24:17, 2Ch_25:14, 2Ch_25:25, 2Ch_25:27, 2Ch_26:2, 2Ch_26:17, 2Ch_32:1, 2Ch_32:9, 2Ch_33:14, 2Ch_34:31, 2Ch_35:20, Ezr_7:1, Ezr_9:10, Ezr_9:13, Neh 3 (16), Neh_11:8, Neh_12:32, Neh_12:38, Neh_13:19, Job_3:1 (3), Job_19:26, Job_21:3, Job_21:21, Job_21:33, Job_29:22, Job_31:7, Job_37:4, Job_39:8, Job_39:10, Job_41:32, Job_42:7, Psa_49:16-17 (2), Psa_63:8, Psa_68:25, Pro_7:22, Pro_20:7, Pro_20:25, Ecc_2:12, Ecc_2:18, Ecc_3:22, Ecc_6:12, Ecc_7:14, Ecc_9:3, Ecc_10:14, Ecc_12:2, Son_1:4, Isa_43:10, Isa_45:14, Jer_2:2 (2), Jer_2:5, Jer_2:8, Jer_2:23, Jer_2:25, Jer_3:7, Jer_3:17, Jer_7:6, Jer_7:9, Jer_8:2, Jer_9:14 (2), Jer_9:16, Jer_9:22, Jer_11:10, Jer_12:6, Jer_12:15, Jer_16:10-12 (3), Jer_16:16, Jer_18:12, Jer_24:1, Jer_25:6, Jer_25:26, Jer_28:12, Jer_29:2, Jer_31:19 (2), Jer_31:33, Jer_32:18, Jer_32:39, Jer_34:8, Jer_35:15, Jer_36:27, Jer_39:5, Jer_40:1, Jer_42:16 (2), Jer_49:37, Jer_50:21, Jer_51:46, Jer_52:8, Eze_5:2, Eze_5:12, Eze_6:9, Eze_9:5, Eze_12:14, Eze_16:23, Eze_20:16, Eze_20:24, Eze_23:30 (2), Eze_29:16, Eze_33:31, Eze_40:1, Eze_44:10, Eze_44:26, Eze_46:12, Dan_8:1, Dan_9:26, Hos_2:5, Hos_2:13, Hos_5:8, Hos_5:11, Hos_11:10, Joe_2:2, Amo_2:4, Amo_7:1, Zec_2:8, Zec_6:6, Zec_7:14
behind, 49
Gen_18:10, Gen_19:17, Gen_19:26, Gen_22:13, Gen_32:18, Gen_32:20, Exo_11:5, Exo_14:19 (2), Num_3:23, Deu_25:18, Jos_8:2, Jos_8:4, Jos_8:14, Jos_8:20, Jdg_18:12, Jdg_20:40, 1Sa_21:9, 1Sa_24:8, 2Sa_1:7, 2Sa_2:20, 2Sa_2:23, 2Sa_3:16, 2Sa_5:23, 2Sa_13:34, 1Ki_10:19, 1Ki_14:9, 2Ki_6:32, 2Ki_9:18-19 (2), 2Ki_11:6, 2Ch_13:13 (2), Neh_4:13, Neh_4:16, Neh_9:26, Psa_50:17, Son_2:9, Isa_30:21, Isa_38:17, Isa_57:8, Isa_66:17, Eze_3:12, Eze_23:35, Eze_41:15, Joe_2:3 (2), Joe_2:14, Zec_1:8
afterward, 40
Gen_10:18, Gen_15:14, Gen_32:20, Gen_38:30, Exo_5:1, Exo_34:32, Lev_14:19, Lev_14:36, Lev_16:26, Lev_16:28, Lev_22:7, Num_5:26, Num_12:16, Num_19:7, Num_31:2, Num_31:24, Num_32:22, Deu_24:21, Jos_2:16, Jos_8:34, Jos_10:26, Jos_24:5, Jdg_1:9, Jdg_7:11, Jdg_19:4-5 (2), 1Sa_24:5, 1Sa_24:8, 2Sa_3:28, 1Ch_2:21, 2Ch_35:14, Ezr_3:5, Psa_73:24, Isa_1:26, Jer_21:7, Jer_34:11, Jer_46:26, Jer_49:6, Hos_3:5, Joe_2:28
followed, 36
Gen_24:61, Gen_32:19, Num_16:24-25 (2), Num_32:11-12 (2), Deu_1:36, Deu_4:3, Jos_14:8-9 (3), Jos_14:14, Jdg_2:12, Jdg_9:4, Jdg_9:49, 1Sa_13:7, 1Sa_17:13-14 (2), 2Sa_2:10, 2Sa_3:31, 2Sa_11:8, 2Sa_20:2, 1Ki_12:20, 1Ki_14:8, 1Ki_16:21-22 (4), 1Ki_20:18-19 (2), 2Ki_4:30, 2Ki_13:2, 2Ki_17:15, Neh_4:23, Eze_10:11, Amo_7:15
following, 29
Gen_41:31, Deu_7:4, Deu_12:30, Jos_22:16, Jos_22:18, Jos_22:23, Jos_22:29, Jdg_2:19, 1Sa_12:14, 1Sa_12:20, 1Sa_14:46, 1Sa_15:11, 1Sa_24:1, 2Sa_2:19, 2Sa_2:21-22 (2), 2Sa_2:26-27 (2), 2Sa_2:30, 2Sa_7:8, 1Ki_1:7, 1Ki_9:6, 1Ki_21:26, 2Ki_17:21, 2Ki_18:6, 1Ch_17:7, 2Ch_25:27, 2Ch_34:33, Psa_78:71
follow, 16
Gen_24:5, Gen_24:8, Gen_24:39, Exo_14:17, Jdg_9:2-3 (2), 1Sa_30:21, 2Sa_17:9, 1Ki_18:21 (2), 1Ki_19:20, 2Ki_6:19, Jer_17:14-16 (3), Eze_13:3
afterwards, 7
Gen_30:21, Exo_11:1, 1Sa_9:13, Job_18:2, Pro_20:17, Pro_24:27, Pro_28:23
posterity, 4
1Ki_16:3 (2), 1Ki_21:21, Psa_49:13
followeth, 3
2Ki_11:15, 2Ch_23:14, Eze_16:34
forasmuch, 3
Gen_41:39, Jdg_11:36, 2Sa_19:30
pursuing, 2
1Ki_22:33, 2Ch_18:32
since, 2
Gen_46:30, Rth_2:11
again, 1
Deu_24:20
away, 1
Num_14:43
back, 1
2Ki_2:24
backside, 1
Exo_3:1
beside, 1
Neh_5:15
followedst, 1
Rth_3:10
hereafter, 1
Eze_20:39
hinder, 1
2Sa_2:23
outlived, 1
Jdg_2:7
overlived, 1
Jos_24:31
persecute, 1
Jer_29:18
remnant, 1
1Ki_14:10
seeing, 1
Jdg_19:23
thenceforth, 1
2Ch_32:23
when, 1
Gen_24:36

It is never once translated as "white". It doesn't mean "white" at all in any concordance, lexicon or dictionary considered. It even stems from H309, meaning to come in behind, late, etc. Even according to Strong's:

"From H309; properly the hind part; generally used as an adverb or conjugation, after (in various senses): - after (that, -ward), again, at, away from, back (from, -side), behind, beside, by, follow (after, -ing), forasmuch, from, hereafter, hinder end, + out (over) live, + persecute, posterity, pursuing, remnant, seeing, since, thence [-forth], when, with."

Where did you get that it should be translated "white"?

Sister White even directly quotes the KJB text without alteration:

"And Abraham lifted up his eyes, and looked, and behold behind him a ram caught in a thicket by his horns; and Abraham went and took the ram, and offered him up for a burnt-offering in the stead of his son." {1SP 101.1}

"And Abraham lifted up his eyes, and looked, and behold, behind him a ram caught in a thicket by his horns; and Abraham went and took the ram, and offered him up for a burnt-offering in the stead of his son." {3SG 108.1}

"And Abraham lifted up his eyes, and looked, and behold behind him a ram caught in a thicket by his horns: and Abraham went and took the ram, and offered him up for a burnt offering in the stead of his son. And Abraham called the name of that place Jehovah-jireh: as it is said to this day, In the mount of the Lord it shall be seen. And the angel of the Lord called unto Abraham out of heaven the second time, and said, By myself have I sworn, saith the Lord, for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son: that in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice." {ST, April 1, 1875 par. 16} "

"And Abraham lifted up his eyes, and looked, and behold behind him a ram caught in a thicket by his horns; and Abraham went and took the ram, and offered him up for a burnt offering in the stead of his son. And Abraham called the name of the place, Jehovah-jireh; as it is said to this day, In the mount of the Lord it shall be seen. And the angel of the Lord called unto Abraham out of Heaven the second time, and said, By myself have I sworn, saith the Lord, for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son; that in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice." {ST, April 3, 1879 par. 8} "

It is never once translated "white" (not by Wycliffe, Latin Vulgate, German Luther, French Ostervald, etc, etc). Not even in any non-English translations.

Where on earth did you get your information from? Even if I were to look in Rabbinical materials (Midrashes, Talmuds, etc), I do not think I would even find it there either.

This seems to be an "error" of your own making, or borrowed from someone misinformed at least.

It is thus a non-sequitur, and irrelevant, to the discussion.
Posted By: Matthew 10vs8

Re: Bible Doctrines affected by Modern Versions - 07/17/21 03:08 PM

Originally Posted by Green Cochoa


OT-4:

Originally Posted by The Holy Bible
And he stripped off his clothes also, and prophesied before Samuel in like manner, and lay down naked all that day and all that night. Wherefore they say, Is Saul also among the prophets? (1 Samuel 19:24, KJV)


Originally Posted by Ellen White
"When he came to Naioth in Ramah, he laid aside his outer garments that betokened his station, and all day, and all night, he lay before Samuel and his pupils, under the influence of the divine Spirit." {ST, August 24, 1888 par. 8}


In other words, Saul removed his kingly outer clothing--not his inner clothing. He was not entirely nude. The Hebrew word here, בְּגָדָ֗יו (bə?ḡā?ḏāw), could be translated as either "clothing" or as "garment." Obviously, the latter would not imply such a complete disrobing as the former, and it is this latter which is the correct translation. The AMPC gets it right. So do the ICB and NCV.

Originally Posted by The Bible
He took off his royal robes and prophesied before Samuel and lay down stripped thus all that day and night. So they say, Is Saul also among the prophets? (1 Samuel 19:24, AMPC)

He took off his robes and prophesied in front of Samuel. He lay that way all day and all night. That is why people ask, ?Is even Saul one of the prophets?? (1 Samuel 19:24, ICB)

He took off his robes and prophesied in front of Samuel. He lay that way all day and all night. That is why people ask, ?Is even Saul one of the prophets?? (1 Samuel 19:24, NCV)


Well, you asked for three--I have just given you three times that many verses from the OT. So, let's move to the NT.
You are utilizing sister White in an entirely wrong way.

Here is the Hebrew:

1Sa 19:24 ויפשׁט גם־הוא בגדיו ויתנבא גם־הוא לפני שׁמואל ויפל ערם כל־היום ההוא וכל־הלילה על־כן יאמרו הגם שׁאול בנביאם׃

1 Sa 19:24 Trasliterated - waYif'sha? Gam-h? B'g?d?yw waYit'naB? gam-h? lif'n?y sh'm??l waYiPol ?rom K?l-haY?m hah? w'kh?l-haL?y'l?h al-K?n yom'r? h?gam sh??l BaN'viyim f

Do you see the words "B'gadayw", and "arom"?

The first means, clothing, whether inner clothing, outer clothing, or both. It just means what one is wearing.

The second means, naked (without clothing), whether, partially or fully.

There is no error here. The error, is in people's misunderstanding of how the Bible interprets itself. This is why sister White used a differing rendition, not having to spend three paragraphs to explain the text in it's own context. It's the same reason she utilized mother translations occasionally. By using other translations in English she is not saying, neither endorsing that the KJB is in error at those points. She is simply utilizing a translation which best fits the section of her writing, and for ease of reading for a general English speaking audience, who do not have all the exact context of the words which surround that text. Think about it for just a minute. Sister White is not translating a bible text (she never claimed to be able to do so). She is giving to readers a general history of events, using various translations, that people accepted at the time to get the point across. That you think because she does not utilize the exact wording of the KJB here, is to take that to mean the KJB translation is in error is ludicrous and an egregious error in utilizing sister White's material. I find your whole response so far, appalling (definitely not appealing to join you in it).

Do you think Moses stripped Aaron to bare skin?

Num_20:28 And Moses stripped Aaron of his garments, and put them upon Eleazar his son; and Aaron died there in the top of the mount: and Moses and Eleazar came down from the mount.

Johnathan (Saul's son) already had stripped himself of his robe and gave it to David:

1Sa_18:4 And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his garments, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle.

You see reading line upon line, we can look in Job and see what the phrase means:

Job 22:6 For thou hast taken a pledge from thy brother for nought, and stripped the naked of their clothing.

It means to take an outer garment, a "pledge". And "naked" means their outer garment was removed. Same words, as in 1 Samuel 19:24, and same usage.

In Ezekiel 19, we read:

Eze 16:39 And I will also give thee into their hand, and they shall throw down thine eminent place, and shall break down thy high places: they shall strip thee also of thy clothes, and shall take thy fair jewels, and leave thee naked and bare.

So, that which is "naked" is to be bereft not of all garments down to the flesh, but of Jewelry, which made them "naked and bare". In other words without ornament or outward display.

A comparable text to this event in King Saul's life is found in 1 Samuel 10, and to prophesy like the prophets is be be dressed like they are (like John the Baptist, simple clothing), out of King's clothes.

King David did the same when leaping before the Ark of God.

2Sa 6:14 And David danced before the LORD with all his might; and David was girded with a linen ephod.

He had removed any apparel (clothing) which would distinguish himself from others. King Saul, being changed into another man (1 Samuel 10, etc) had done no less.

Sister White is not trying to show all of that in as many paragraphs as I just took. She is simply trying to give a general understanding of events to us by her 'midrash' (as it were), or paraphrase of events. I do not find sister White utilizing any known translation into the English here. She does not even cite another English translation at all, neither do the editors, or EGW estate imply she had.

She nowhere says that the KJB translation of 1 Samuel 19:24 was in error. She doesn't even imply it. You are egregiously misusing sister White, in a way I have never seen done before. You are quite dangerous with this, and I mean this in all serious candor. If you teach these things to others, I advise you to stop immediately and check yourself.
Posted By: Matthew 10vs8

Re: Bible Doctrines affected by Modern Versions - 07/17/21 03:08 PM

Originally Posted by Green Cochoa


NEW TESTAMENT

NT-1:

Originally Posted by The Holy Bible
But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. (Matthew 5:39, KJV)


This error is significant. Should we not resist evil? Thankfully, once again, Mrs. White helps us understand this one, because it IS important. This time she does not highlight the error directly, but quotes the verse from a different version. Twice in the same context.

Originally Posted by Ellen White
"Resist not him that is evil: but whosoever
smiteth thee on thy right cheek, turn
to him the other also." Matthew 5:39, R.V.


Occasions of irritation to the Jews were constantly arising from their contact with the Roman soldiery. Detachments of troops were stationed at different points throughout Judea and Galilee, and their presence reminded the people of their own degradation as a nation. With bitterness of soul they heard the loud blast of the trumpet and saw the troops forming around the standard of Rome and bowing in homage to this symbol of her power. Collisions between the people and the soldiers were frequent, and these inflamed the popular hatred. Often as some Roman official with his guard of soldiers hastened from point to point, he would seize upon the Jewish peasants who were laboring in the field and compel them to carry burdens up the mountainside or render any other service that might be needed. This was in accordance with the Roman law and custom, and resistance to such demands only called forth taunts and cruelty. Every day deepened in the hearts of the people the longing to cast off the Roman yoke. Especially among the bold, rough-handed Galileans the spirit of insurrection was rife. Capernaum, being a border town, was the seat of a Roman garrison, and even while Jesus was teaching, the sight of a company of soldiers recalled to His hearers the bitter thought of Israel's humiliation. The people looked eagerly to Christ, hoping that He was the One who was to humble the pride of Rome. {MB 69.2}

With sadness Jesus looks into the upturned faces before Him. He notes the spirit of revenge that has stamped its evil imprint upon them, and knows how bitterly the people long for power to crush their oppressors. Mournfully He bids them, "Resist not him that is evil: but whosoever smiteth thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also." {MB 70.1}


In Greek, the definite article uncharacteristically precedes the adjective "evil," which should make it either a noun or reference an antecedent noun. The adjective being singular, the referent should also be singular, making "one" a correct translation. In Greek, sentences are not ordered as they are in English, with subject -> verb -> object (SVO). Words are "inflected" to indicate their part of speech so that, regardless of where they appear in the sentence, the grammar is clear. In this case, the antecedent actually appears after the word, in the part translated as "whoever" or "whosoever."

Jesus is not telling us not to resist evil! He is telling us not to resist the evil person who seeks to harm us.


Do you realize that sister White quoted the KJB exactly as translated on several occasions and not once called them "error", or even implied it was?

"Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil; but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away." {2SP 223.1}

"That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.' {RH, April 13, 1911 par. 3}
"The principles that you present to others, you should first know are faultless because sustained by a 'Thus saith the Lord.' How careful we should be in giving advice, lest our counsel result in great evil and suffering. How much better for the families to go out into some other cities or some other country, but never encourage the spirit of defiance and resistance, even if they are placed in the chain-gang. The bigotry that exists, the prejudice against truth to sustain religious error, is firm; for the human agent is stirred with hellish power from beneath. The Lord sees, the Lord knows, all about the sufferings of his people for the truth's sake. Pray, our Saviour says, for those who entreat you evil, and resist not evil. {RH, April 13, 1911 par. 4} "

" "Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil; but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away." {4Red 75.1}"

Also, your translation skills seem subpar, along with your analyzing skills. How many years did you take those languages in?

Quoting the RV, does not prove that the KJB in Matthew 5:39 is an error in translation. The very context of Matthew 5:39 in the KJB reads just fine. You are stuck on single words, when the surrounding context defines those words and uses.

I asked you for the best examples. If this is all you have, you have demonstrated not a single point of your claims.
Posted By: Matthew 10vs8

Re: Bible Doctrines affected by Modern Versions - 07/17/21 03:09 PM

Originally Posted by Green Cochoa


NT-2:

Originally Posted by The Holy Bible
And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen. (Matthew 6:13, KJV)


Same song, second verse. Ellen White again confirms this--and, again, by quoting from a different translation.

Originally Posted by Ellen White
"Bring us not into temptation, but
deliver us from the evil one."
Matthew 6:13, R.V.

Temptation is enticement to sin, and this does not proceed from God, but from Satan and from the evil of our own hearts. "God cannot be tempted with evil, and He Himself tempteth no man." James 1:13, R.V. {MB 116.2}


In this case, perhaps, we would like to be delivered from both evil and the Evil One--but, living in the world as we are, the former waits until the coming of Christ to be fulfilled. Our prayers should more specially focus on deliverance from Satan in our present lives.


Again, this is like the first. Do you know that sister White quoted the KJB exactly on several occasions, and not once said that the KJB translation was in "error", nor implied it?

"Again he writes: "And it came to pass, that, as he was praying in a certain place, when he ceased, one of his disciples said unto him, Lord, teach us to pray, as John also taught his disciples. And he said unto them, When ye pray, say, Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth. Give us day by day our daily bread. And forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil." Jesus repeated this prayer with great solemnity, and then gave his disciples an illustration of the privilege and success of prayer. He gave this lesson to encourage his disciples to be persevering in offering their petitions, and to encourage all in continual striving in prayer. {RH, November 19, 1895 par. 1} "

""When ye pray," He said, "say, Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be Thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth. Give us day by day our daily bread. And forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil." {ST, March 29, 1905 par. 2}"

" Christ prayed to His Father in behalf of His followers, "I pray not that Thou shouldst take them out of the world, but that Thou shouldst keep them from the evil." Sin and pollution abound on every hand, and daily, hourly, the prayer should ascend to heaven, "Deliver us from evil." The offering of this prayer by one who realizes his weakness makes the temptation of the enemy powerless. {ST, March 29, 1905 par. 10} "

" "And it came to pass, that, as he was praying in a certain place, when he ceased, one of his disciples said unto him, Lord, teach us to pray, as John also taught his disciples." Jesus answered them in the words of the Lord's prayer. "When ye pray," he said, "say, Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth. Give us day by day our daily bread. And forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil." {YI, December 7, 1899 par. 1} "

etc, etc, etc.

Sister White in the quotation you gave, was making a certain point about the devil, and utilizing the RV was better for her point there. She never once stated that the KJB was in "error" in is translation, and never stated that the RV was superior or that the KJB was "inferior" in that area.

If you read the actual context of the prayer, let me show you the real evil (that satan tries to get us to carry out), ready???:

Luk 11:2 And he said unto them, When ye pray, say, Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth.
Luk 11:3 Give us day by day our daily bread.
Luk 11:4 And forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil.

Mat 6:9 After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.
Mat 6:10 Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.
Mat 6:11 Give us this day our daily bread.
Mat 6:12 And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.
Mat 6:13 And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.
Mat 6:14 For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you:
Mat 6:15 But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.

Did you see what the "evil" was?

It is unforgiveness. Satan (and selfishness) attempts to lead us to be unforgiving. You know, if you search the writings of sister White long enough, I am sure you will find the same thing. smile Why not go look and spend some real time doing that, instead of doing what you are doing here.
Posted By: Matthew 10vs8

Re: Bible Doctrines affected by Modern Versions - 07/17/21 03:10 PM

Originally Posted by Green Cochoa


NT-3:

Originally Posted by The Holy Bible
And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people. (Acts 12:4, KJV)


The Greek word here is πάσχα (pascha). That means Passover, not Easter! This error is so blatant and straightforward as to be widely attested by scholars and more correctly translated (as Passover) by many other Bible versions, including: ASV, AMP, AMPC, CSB, CEB, Darby, DLNT, ERV, EHV, ESV, GNT, Phillips, Mounce, NASB, NCV, NIV, etc.

There was really no excuse for this one. None. It's an embarrassment.


Again, this is your misunderstanding. "Easter" simply comes from Tyndales "ester", and "easterlambe" (1 Corinthians 5:7)

1 Corinthians 5:7 Pourge therfore the olde leven that ye maye be newe dowe as ye are swete breed. For Christ oure esterlambe is offered vp for vs

The word means "passover" as Christ fulfilled it.

The German Luther says the same:

1Co 5:7 Darum feget den alten Sauerteig aus, auf da? ihr ein neuer Teig seid, gleichwie ihr unges?uert seid. Denn wir haben auch ein Osterlamm, das ist Christus, f?r uns geopfert.

"ester" (Ostern; Germanic) means from the sunrise (dawn), or east, from etymology Online, "from Eastre (Northumbrian Eostre), from Proto-Germanic *austron-, "dawn," ...". For Christ is the sun of righteousness. He comes from the east victoriously. He arose just before sunrise, and is the light of the world. That you do not understand the history of "Easter" and why it is in the KJB means you should go study some more. Please. The real "embarrassment" is your argument from ignorance.

Do you know who coined the word "passover" in English? Do you know what the Anglo/Saxon/German word "ostern" means? Tyndale, loved to use multiple words in English, etc to translate from one Hebrew, Syriac or Greek word. The KJB is just a lst holdover of an older word. It exists in the Bishop's Bible (3 places; John 11:55, "And the Iewes Easter was nye at hande, and many went out of the countrey vp to Hierusale before the Easter, to purifie them selues."; and Acts 12:4, "Act_12:4 And when he had caught hym, he put hym in pryson also, and delyuered hym to foure quaternions of souldiers to be kept, intendyng after Easter to bryng hym foorth to the people."), as others also.

The words are defined by scripture, not by man's present use (misuse, misunderstanding).

'Easter' (shortened form of 'easterlamb' 1 Cor. 5:7, and a carry over use/translation from Tyndale, Matthew, Genevans, Luther) is just another word for passover (as fulfilled in Christ Jesus). You might find this article helpful, though I do not necesarily agree with everything in it - Riches of Grace: Easter - http://www.biblicaltruth.info/Articles/Easter.htm

There is no mystery here. Simply trace the word in any concordance, and let the Bible define the word. It isn't hard, or complicated to the serious and prayerful student of God's word.

It is not an "error". Neither is it an "inferior" translation. It is simply a differing translation. The context is clear when it is used. It refers to the entire week of the first feast of Israel (Leviticus 23).

The KJB translators in Acts 12:4, the ?old Ecclesiastical word? Easter was preferred to Passover which is pascha in the Greek (Strong?s #3957). Their stated reason for using Easter was that ?it may be understood even of the very vulgar.? They were simply following King James? Instructions which stated: ?The old ecclesiastical words to be kept; as the word church, not to be translated congregation, &c.? They were also following the King James? instruction to closely follow former English translations such as the Bishops?, Coverdale and Tyndale Bibles which also translated pascha as Easter.

You see the common (vulgar, How's that for a word!) people understood 'ester' just fine. it was not until modern day shenanigans that people make a hub-bub about all this riggamorole.

I have an entire study on this one verse, and one word, just from the Bible, and also from the SoP/ToJ and history, confirming what I just said. Am I going to post all that for this? No. It would be a waste of time.

Originally Posted by Green Cochoa
There are actually many more errors one could find
I notice the words "one could find". Yes, it does seem like you tried awfully hard to "find" what you were looking for. I think you failed.

Originally Posted by Green Cochoa
but I will stop here
Ok.

Originally Posted by Green Cochoa
as I have other burdens on my time.
Ok. Me too. I do not have the time to simply waste as I just did disproving what someone simply calls "errors".
Posted By: Matthew 10vs8

Re: Bible Doctrines affected by Modern Versions - 07/17/21 03:10 PM

Originally Posted by Green Cochoa
Let me wrap up with a summary of what you asked and my overall response to it.

Originally Posted by Matthew 10vs8
"superior translation" is subjective, and moreso since you gave no standard or foundation by which to test that which is supposed to be superior to that which is supposed to be inferior.

Please produce 3 "superior translations" in the OT, and 3 "superior translations" in the NT, and give the foundational ruler, or standard by which you measured against to determine the 'superiority' and 'inferiority'. Thank you.

(PS, How many Bibles (and in what languages) do I need, so that I can have all of God's words, and finally have no errors when combined, and how do I determine what is and is not errors in these that I am to have, so that I can take out all of the errors and have a pure Bible without error, or do you suggest that there will always be error no matter what, or do you suggest that the original autograph's are alone without error,or do you suggest the original speech before being written are without error (like God/Moses, Jeremiah/Baruch, Paul/Tertias, etc)?


As you can see, I have been easily able to find superior translations.
No you most certainly did not! You merely asserted that again. Even sister White herself was not giving superior translations, and she never once says in citing a differing version that it was "superior". You are simply asserting, using her in an incorrect manner.

Originally Posted by Green Cochoa
These are frequently supportable by Ellen White herself.
1. no they are not. 2. That is an incorrect way to use those writings! I personally think that even the White estate would be appalled at your use. That is just my own opinion on the matter.

Originally Posted by Green Cochoa
But anyone who can read the Bible in its original languages can give testimony to these truths.
O yippie, an original languages only person. I have to know the Hebrew and koine Greek , to "really" know what it means. Nonsense. In fact, that is where most people who do not know those languages, or very little (like a 2nd year language student), get into trouble. I also doubt very much that you can read the languages in their original forms. I can simply give a test. I can produce pictures, of Hebrew and koine Greek in original documents, and give you approx. 6 hours to translate them. I doubt I would ever hear from you. How do I think this? Simple. I do it all the time with those who claim to be able to read such. Reading a polyglot, or interlinear or referring to a concordance, lexicon, ain't nuthin' like reading actual mss, codices, papyri, etc.

Originally Posted by Green Cochoa
I am thankful to have been privileged to take courses in Hebrew, Aramaic (Syriac), and Greek.
I think you should get your money back if you spent any. If it was free, I think they ought to be closed down.

Originally Posted by Green Cochoa
I am still learning, and there is much more to learn.
I finally agree with you 100%.

Originally Posted by Green Cochoa
But Mrs. White helps us understand that there are errors in our Bibles
Stepped beyond the bounds again. She never said any such thing. You simply put those words in her mouth/writings.

Originally Posted by Green Cochoa
, and she never once indicates that it is word-perfect in its translation.
She simply called it the "common" bible/version. God's word says:

Mar_12:37 David therefore himself calleth him Lord; and whence is he then his son? And the common people heard him gladly.

Ah yes. The "common" people with a "common" Bible. Everything else just seems like Babylon and confusion these days.

Originally Posted by Green Cochoa
We are cautioned, however, not to teach that some parts are inspired and other parts not--it is not up to us to set our judgment above the Word of God.
What did you just try to do with "sacrifice" in Daniel? Never the less, that is irrelevant to the discussion.

2Ti 3:13 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.
2Ti 3:14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;
2Ti 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
2Ti 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

I believe it.

Originally Posted by Green Cochoa
That said, anyone can easily see that some of these errors should be fixed.
I could not disagree with you more.

Originally Posted by Green Cochoa
If Ellen White, who was inspired by God, tells us of a mistake--doesn't that mean that there is?
I do not see her using the word "mistake" in your examples. Anywhere. You "supplied" that word.

Originally Posted by Green Cochoa
It is my understanding that there will always be some mistakes.
Wow. I do not want what you believe. Ever.

Originally Posted by Green Cochoa
No translation can ever be perfect.
It's why I gave the example of:

Act_26:14 And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.

Jesus is speaking in Hebrew to Saul. Luke, by inspiration of the Holy Ghost (giver of tongues (languages) and interpretation of tongues (languages)), translates that Hebrew into koine Greek.

Is what Jesus (Deity) said perfectly given in Hebrew?

Is what Luke, by inspiration of the Holy Ghost (Deity) "interpreted" perfectly in koine Greek?

Which one is not perfect?

If both are, then what you just said is not entirely true or accurate, is it?

What about the Ten Commandments? Oh wait, you already said that was imperfectly translated. ...

Originally Posted by Green Cochoa
You may not know, but I have been involved in Bible translation work for a number of years now.
Good and bad from what I have seen. It is good that you do that work so that others may have the word of God in their mother language. Yet, what I have seen of the logic is not so good, even bad, and needs to be fixed. I think the "errors" lie with your understanding most often, not the translation of the KJB.

Originally Posted by Green Cochoa
We are nearing completion, and hope to finish it this year. The language to which I am translating has no verb conjugations, no plurals, no articles, a much-reduced set of prepositions and conjunctions (no words for: lest, of, etc.), no way to distinguish between restrictive and nonrestrictive dependent clauses, no way to say words like "brother" or "sister" without imposing age/status (older/younger) on them, and no way to use common pronouns for royalty or deity. The language itself forces decisions no translator would like to make. We must, because of the grammar, both add and subtract some words or information. For example, was Goliath's brother older or younger? It might not be important, but after translation, it has a 50% chance of being right--it's just guesswork. There is no way to omit this within the language.
Just answer this one question. What is the language you are translating the Bible into, and what are the sources you are translating from (be specific, I would mss, codie, etc)?

Perhaps, it's best to hand them a KJB and help them learn the language of the common people, KJB "English", which is over all the world do to England being that empire on which the sun never set.

If not possible, well, do your best in translation.

Originally Posted by Green Cochoa
Now, given the language I have just described, do you think a perfect translation to it can exist? Don't you think it would be better if people read the original language--or maybe, even, just read the Bible in English? But they don't know those languages. They don't have those options.
Some languages are so distorted and amalgamated as to lose at lot. Should we translate a bible into 'pidgin'? I do not think so.

God gave the OT in Hebrew (some Syriack, very minor).

God gave the NT in koine Greek.

God gave the whole Bible in "common" English (England English).

Most people cannot ever read Masoretic Hebrew or koine Greek. God never asked anyone to do so. That's why he gave the gifts.

Originally Posted by Green Cochoa
Neither is the English translation without error.
I disagree.

Originally Posted by Green Cochoa
Jesus commissioned his disciples to carry the Gospel to every nation, tongue, and people.
Yep.

Originally Posted by Green Cochoa
That means we must translate it into every language.
Yes and no. The Gospel is not the whole Bible. The Gospel is a portion of it. One can simply speak the Gospel in a few words in their language without a whole translation of a Bible. Is it neat and a blessing to have such an Bible translated into Mandarin Chinese, Farsi, Arabic, etc? Sure. Yet, there is no injunction to print the Bible into every language.

Originally Posted by Green Cochoa
Mrs. White's books, as least in part, are translated into at least 135 languages. And I wish we had more translations of her writings.
Sure, but I think the English are doing just fine. From where I am at, there could even be some good Samoan translations, and I know a few people who are working on those here. Those that exist for the most part in that language are not that great, even sloppy.

Originally Posted by Green Cochoa
God bless,

Green Cochoa.
I accept.

Now, I pray that the truth of what I have shared reaches you without too much offense and you consider what I have said in response in all the evidences given and see if they make more sense that what you provided. I write rather straight forward. Maybe I am harder than I need to be. I am simply trying to take this seriously. Anyways, may the love of God always be shed abroad in your heart, and be found in Him in the day to come, to stand upon the Sea of Glass - https://archive.org/download/sea-of-glass/Sea%20of%20Glass.pptx

[ps. if you find many spelling errors, it was getting late]
Posted By: Green Cochoa

Re: Bible Doctrines affected by Modern Versions - 07/17/21 03:51 PM

Matthew,

I'll be honest. I didn't read all of your lengthy posts. I didn't need to. I read enough to learn that you present yourself as an expert debater and that you do not believe Ellen White. I am not an expert debater, and if you will not accept Mrs. White's writings, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, I can never hope to persuade you as a non-prophet. My time will be better spent elsewhere.

May God help each of us to avoid the greatest deception possible--the belief that we are right when we are all wrong.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.
Posted By: Matthew 10vs8

Re: Bible Doctrines affected by Modern Versions - 07/18/21 12:23 AM

Originally Posted by Green Cochoa
Matthew,

I'll be honest. I didn't read all of your lengthy posts. I didn't need to. I read enough to learn that you present yourself as an expert debater and that you do not believe Ellen White. I am not an expert debater, and if you will not accept Mrs. White's writings, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, I can never hope to persuade you as a non-prophet. My time will be better spent elsewhere.

May God help each of us to avoid the greatest deception possible--the belief that we are right when we are all wrong.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.
I am a Bible (KJB) Seventh-day Adventist. Here's what the Bible says:

Pro 18:13? He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him.?

Pro 18:17? He that is first in his own cause seemeth just; but his neighbour cometh and searcheth him.?

You said, "I'll be honest. I didn't read all of your lengthy posts."

You just failed of what scripture told you to do.

You said, "... that you do not believe Ellen White."

That is probably the most hurtful thing you said. It cut deep. The LORD knoweth my heart and what I know and acknowledge publicly to be true about sister White, and how I do indeed believe, having tested as the LORD asked me to. You overstepped by a long distance in that statement. I know for certain, and without a doubt, she was (being asleep now) the messenger of the LORD, and more than a prophet(ess). I can even tell you what the food for worms vision (1856) actually means and it's soon fulfillment. Even the White Estate doesn't understand it, though I sent the research to them from AFmin, when I ministered there.

I read every single word you gave. I responded with deep study and evidence to every point. That you did not do the same for me, shows your disdain for me (but to let you in on my thinking the entire time I wrote, I expected it of you to do what you did, though I had hoped you'd disappoint me by at least reading all of it, even though I do not expect you to respond to it).

My answers stand, and will stand the test. I leave all for others to now judge between us and the positions we hold.
Posted By: Green Cochoa

Re: Bible Doctrines affected by Modern Versions - 07/18/21 02:32 AM

Well, if you say you will accept Mrs. White, then perhaps you may reconsider some of your words that have been stout against the truth and against me.

Here's a portion of what you said on this subject:

Originally Posted by Matthew 10vs8
"Kill" is perfectly valid. Why? Becuase God's Ten Commandments are eternal principles, they also exist in Heaven, and as such, even to take the life of one of God's lesser creatures (cat, dog, cow, etc) is to break the commandment, since He was the one who gave them all life.

The commandment is not simply against "murder" (which deals in only, or exclusively, things of mankind, or angel-kind). I could never say, not to "murder" a dog, a cat, a cow, etc. I could only say not to "kill" them.

Your finite human judgment is in error. What you "think" is an "error" in translation, is far superior in the context of scripture and of the Heavenly matters.

...

You admitted that the NIV was "malignant". Do you think it might affect doctrine in the Ten Commandments, which would affect the doctrines of Heaven (3rd) also, especially in the New Heaven and New Earth (here) to merely address "murder" rather than "kill". Some persons I know of, teach that in the New Heavens and New Earth animal death continues, but not human death (since they are evolutionary minded and start in Genesis that way).

Yes, the NT does also give "thou shalt do no murder" (Matthew 19:18), but that was because Jesus was dealing with human beings, not addressing the killing of animals (for which at that time was still required for sacrifices). Murder is a form of killing. Yet not all killing is murder.


You would, by this, contradict yourself just as much as you contradict the truth. You seem to believe that it is "required" to break the Ten Commandments. If you truly believe this, and continue to do so after this post in which I will share something important from Mrs. White on the matter, then I will see no need of spending my precious time further on the topic. If, on the other hand, you are willing to accept the truth, apologize for your errors or mistakes, and re-establish your position on a better foundation, then I will be willing to continue this conversation with you, and I might even read more of what you've posted.

It is possible that you had not seen this material from Mrs. White, despite the general tenor of what you've posted indicating that your general familiarity with her writings.

From Gospel Workers:

Originally Posted by Ellen White
In time past there have been presented to me for my opinion many non-essential, fanciful theories. Some have advocated the theory that believers should pray with their eyes open. Others teach that, because those who ministered anciently in sacred office were required, upon entering the sanctuary, to remove their sandals and wash their feet, believers now should remove their shoes when entering the house of worship. Still others refer to the sixth commandment, and declare that even the insects that torment human beings should not be killed. And some have put forth the theory that the redeemed will not have gray hair--as if this were a matter of any importance. {GW 313.1}

I am instructed to say that these theories are the production of minds unlearned in the first principles of the gospel. By such theories the enemy strives to eclipse the great truths for this time. {GW 313.2}

Those who in their preaching pass by the great truths of God's word to speak of minor matters, are not preaching the gospel, but are dealing in idle sophistry. Let not our ministers spend time in the discussion of such matters. Let those who have any question as to what they should teach, any question as to the subjects upon which they should dwell, go to the discourses of the great Teacher, and follow His lines of thought. The subjects that Jesus regarded as essential are the subjects that we are to urge home today. We are to encourage our hearers to dwell upon those subjects which are of eternal moment. {GW 313.3}



From Selected Messages:

Originally Posted by Ellen White
Letters have come to me, asking in regard to the teaching of some who say that nothing that has life should be killed, not even insects, however annoying or distressing they may be. Is it possible that anyone claims that God has given him this message to give to the people? The Lord has never given any human being such a message. God has told no one that it is a sin to kill the insects which destroy our peace and rest. In all His teaching, Christ gave no message of this character, and His disciples are to teach only what He commanded them. {1SM 170.3}

There are those who are always seeking to engage in controversy. This is the sum of their religion. They are filled with a desire to produce something new and strange. They dwell upon matters of the smallest consequence, exercising upon these their sharp, controversial talents. {1SM 170.4}

Idle tales are brought in as important truths, and by some they are actually set up as tests. Thus controversy is created, and minds are diverted from present truth. Satan knows that if he can get men and women absorbed in trifling details, greater questions will be left unheeded. He will furnish plenty of material for the attention of those who are willing to think upon trifling, unimportant subjects. The minds of the Pharisees were absorbed with questions of no moment. They passed by the precious truths of God's Word to discuss the traditionary lore handed down from generation to generation, which in no way concerned their salvation. And so today, while precious moments are passing into eternity, the great questions of salvation are overlooked for some idle tale. {1SM 170.5}


Now, you seem quite willing to pronounce judgment on this matter saying that it is a sin to kill animals, which is why the Ten Commandments should say "kill" in place of "murder." But Ellen White speaks to you and says that God has not given you such a message. She seems to know your type--always seeking controversy.

If the Ten Commandments actually mean that we should not kill animals, why does Mrs. White say God hasn't given anyone such a message? Did He not give everyone those commandments? On the other hand, if the commandments should actually mean that we cannot kill animals, then why does Mrs. White say it is not a sin to break the commandments?

Please understand that I have no desire to argue. But I do desire to "rightly divide" the Word of Truth and to have a correct concept of God and of His attributes.

Unfortunately, interpreting that "kill" is the meaning intended in the Ten Commandments would mean that God has commanded us to sin, because God commanded the killing of animals, and even of people in certain circumstances. God commanded the people, for example, to kill the Sabbath breaker by stoning, and to kill Achan in the same manner. He commanded them to kill the Amalekites and others. Furthermore, God kills. Does God break His own commandments?

Matthew, you seem quite willing to conflate the Hebrew words, which you cannot easily see when reading English, but have zero toleration for the difference between my usage of "mistake" and Ellen White's usage of "error." To you I was to be reproached for my word choice. You have shown yourself more willing to cavil than to understand the truth; more willing to debate, and to win at all costs, than to listen and to learn. Is this not why you have supported your views against Mrs. White by the world's scholars? Did Mrs. White err in telling us that the word "sacrifice" should not be in those texts in Daniel because the academics tells us why it is there?

You would not accept, even with her clear statement that the word did not belong in that text, that I had a reason to think it was an error in the KJV translation. I think the real reason you would not accept this goes beyond the truth itself to your "win the debate at all costs" mindset. You appear to have entrenched yourself in a position where you intend to defend your views regardless of any evidence shown you.

Honestly, I'd rather lose the debate than to have that kind of attitude. Naturally, if I have been in error, then I might need to humbly accept it. Yet if that is the price of learning and having the pure truth, I want to be ready to pay it. I don't really care if I win or lose--as I said, I'm not an expert debater. I care about the truth. My views have often changed as I have continued learning, and I am willing to see them change yet further. But I can find no safety in arguments that oppose Mrs. White or the Bible.

I do wonder if you might actually be someone who has participated in this forum before under a different moniker. But, as I've said, I'm willing to be gracious if I see that you are willing to accept truth.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.
Posted By: Matthew 10vs8

Re: Bible Doctrines affected by Modern Versions - 07/18/21 05:12 AM

Originally Posted by Green Cochoa
Well, if you say you will accept Mrs. White, then perhaps you may reconsider some of your words that have been stout against the truth and against me.

Here's a portion of what you said on this subject:

Originally Posted by Matthew 10vs8
"Kill" is perfectly valid. Why? Becuase God's Ten Commandments are eternal principles, they also exist in Heaven, and as such, even to take the life of one of God's lesser creatures (cat, dog, cow, etc) is to break the commandment, since He was the one who gave them all life.

The commandment is not simply against "murder" (which deals in only, or exclusively, things of mankind, or angel-kind). I could never say, not to "murder" a dog, a cat, a cow, etc. I could only say not to "kill" them.

Your finite human judgment is in error. What you "think" is an "error" in translation, is far superior in the context of scripture and of the Heavenly matters.

...

You admitted that the NIV was "malignant". Do you think it might affect doctrine in the Ten Commandments, which would affect the doctrines of Heaven (3rd) also, especially in the New Heaven and New Earth (here) to merely address "murder" rather than "kill". Some persons I know of, teach that in the New Heavens and New Earth animal death continues, but not human death (since they are evolutionary minded and start in Genesis that way).

Yes, the NT does also give "thou shalt do no murder" (Matthew 19:18), but that was because Jesus was dealing with human beings, not addressing the killing of animals (for which at that time was still required for sacrifices). Murder is a form of killing. Yet not all killing is murder.


You would, by this, contradict yourself just as much as you contradict the truth. You seem to believe that it is "required" to break the Ten Commandments. If you truly believe this, and continue to do so after this post in which I will share something important from Mrs. White on the matter, then I will see no need of spending my precious time further on the topic. If, on the other hand, you are willing to accept the truth, apologize for your errors or mistakes, and re-establish your position on a better foundation, then I will be willing to continue this conversation with you, and I might even read more of what you've posted.

It is possible that you had not seen this material from Mrs. White, despite the general tenor of what you've posted indicating that your general familiarity with her writings.

From Gospel Workers:

Originally Posted by Ellen White
In time past there have been presented to me for my opinion many non-essential, fanciful theories. Some have advocated the theory that believers should pray with their eyes open. Others teach that, because those who ministered anciently in sacred office were required, upon entering the sanctuary, to remove their sandals and wash their feet, believers now should remove their shoes when entering the house of worship. Still others refer to the sixth commandment, and declare that even the insects that torment human beings should not be killed. And some have put forth the theory that the redeemed will not have gray hair--as if this were a matter of any importance. {GW 313.1}

I am instructed to say that these theories are the production of minds unlearned in the first principles of the gospel. By such theories the enemy strives to eclipse the great truths for this time. {GW 313.2}

Those who in their preaching pass by the great truths of God's word to speak of minor matters, are not preaching the gospel, but are dealing in idle sophistry. Let not our ministers spend time in the discussion of such matters. Let those who have any question as to what they should teach, any question as to the subjects upon which they should dwell, go to the discourses of the great Teacher, and follow His lines of thought. The subjects that Jesus regarded as essential are the subjects that we are to urge home today. We are to encourage our hearers to dwell upon those subjects which are of eternal moment. {GW 313.3}



From Selected Messages:

Originally Posted by Ellen White
Letters have come to me, asking in regard to the teaching of some who say that nothing that has life should be killed, not even insects, however annoying or distressing they may be. Is it possible that anyone claims that God has given him this message to give to the people? The Lord has never given any human being such a message. God has told no one that it is a sin to kill the insects which destroy our peace and rest. In all His teaching, Christ gave no message of this character, and His disciples are to teach only what He commanded them. {1SM 170.3}

There are those who are always seeking to engage in controversy. This is the sum of their religion. They are filled with a desire to produce something new and strange. They dwell upon matters of the smallest consequence, exercising upon these their sharp, controversial talents. {1SM 170.4}

Idle tales are brought in as important truths, and by some they are actually set up as tests. Thus controversy is created, and minds are diverted from present truth. Satan knows that if he can get men and women absorbed in trifling details, greater questions will be left unheeded. He will furnish plenty of material for the attention of those who are willing to think upon trifling, unimportant subjects. The minds of the Pharisees were absorbed with questions of no moment. They passed by the precious truths of God's Word to discuss the traditionary lore handed down from generation to generation, which in no way concerned their salvation. And so today, while precious moments are passing into eternity, the great questions of salvation are overlooked for some idle tale. {1SM 170.5}


Now, you seem quite willing to pronounce judgment on this matter saying that it is a sin to kill animals, which is why the Ten Commandments should say "kill" in place of "murder." But Ellen White speaks to you and says that God has not given you such a message. She seems to know your type--always seeking controversy.

If the Ten Commandments actually mean that we should not kill animals, why does Mrs. White say God hasn't given anyone such a message? Did He not give everyone those commandments? On the other hand, if the commandments should actually mean that we cannot kill animals, then why does Mrs. White say it is not a sin to break the commandments?

Please understand that I have no desire to argue. But I do desire to "rightly divide" the Word of Truth and to have a correct concept of God and of His attributes.

Unfortunately, interpreting that "kill" is the meaning intended in the Ten Commandments would mean that God has commanded us to sin, because God commanded the killing of animals, and even of people in certain circumstances. God commanded the people, for example, to kill the Sabbath breaker by stoning, and to kill Achan in the same manner. He commanded them to kill the Amalekites and others. Furthermore, God kills. Does God break His own commandments?

Matthew, you seem quite willing to conflate the Hebrew words, which you cannot easily see when reading English, but have zero toleration for the difference between my usage of "mistake" and Ellen White's usage of "error." To you I was to be reproached for my word choice. You have shown yourself more willing to cavil than to understand the truth; more willing to debate, and to win at all costs, than to listen and to learn. Is this not why you have supported your views against Mrs. White by the world's scholars? Did Mrs. White err in telling us that the word "sacrifice" should not be in those texts in Daniel because the academics tells us why it is there?

You would not accept, even with her clear statement that the word did not belong in that text, that I had a reason to think it was an error in the KJV translation. I think the real reason you would not accept this goes beyond the truth itself to your "win the debate at all costs" mindset. You appear to have entrenched yourself in a position where you intend to defend your views regardless of any evidence shown you.

Honestly, I'd rather lose the debate than to have that kind of attitude. Naturally, if I have been in error, then I might need to humbly accept it. Yet if that is the price of learning and having the pure truth, I want to be ready to pay it. I don't really care if I win or lose--as I said, I'm not an expert debater. I care about the truth. My views have often changed as I have continued learning, and I am willing to see them change yet further. But I can find no safety in arguments that oppose Mrs. White or the Bible.

I do wonder if you might actually be someone who has participated in this forum before under a different moniker. But, as I've said, I'm willing to be gracious if I see that you are willing to accept truth.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.
Green Cochoa,

Can you point to any place where I stated it was a sin to "kill" insects on this present earth?

If you will carefully read my statements, on the matter of "kill" and the eternal principles, it refers to two places [1] Heaven (3rd) where God dwells with creatures, like 'dogs', 'cats', etc., and [2] New Heaven and New Earth when there is no more death. It would be a sin to "kill" God's creatures under or in those places circumstances.

If you carefully read sister White's statements, she is speaking about it is no sin to "kill" insects on this present fallen earth, in other words, the "world" that now is, which is "reserved" for the fire to come.

I have no contradiction, but you still have the misunderstanding not merely of what I have said, but of the commandment itself.

Sister White uses the exact phrase, "Thou shalt not kill." in many places.

"Satan was at hand to suggest that he must be deceived, for the divine law commands, "Thou shalt not kill," and God would not require what He had once forbidden. {PP 148.3}"

" "VI. Thou shalt not kill. {ST, October 15, 1894 par. 9} ... If this code of morals had been respected and obeyed, the world would not now be in the state in which it is,--corrupted under the inhabitants thereof. {ST, October 15, 1894 par. 14} ... Christ then proceeds to show that the commandments are exceeding broad, and penetrate to the very motives that control the heart. {ST, October 15, 1894 par. 16}"

""Thou shalt not kill." {PP 308.4}
All acts of injustice that tend to shorten life; the spirit of hatred and revenge, or the indulgence of any passion that leads to injurious acts toward others, or causes us even to wish them harm (for "whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer"); a selfish neglect of caring for the needy or suffering; all self-indulgence or unnecessary deprivation or excessive labor that tends to injure health--all these are, to a greater or less degree, violations of the sixth commandment. {PP 308.5}"

""Thou shalt not kill. {1SP 236.4}"

""Thou shalt not kill. {3SG 266.3}"

""Thou shalt not kill." {MB 56.1}"

etc, etc.

What was the context of my statements?

What is the context of sister White's statements?

"This earth has been cursed because of sin, and in these last days vermin of every kind will multiply. {2MR 178.3}"

New Heavens and New Earth, as I said, or 3rd Heaven (where God dwells) as I said? No.

Sister White and I are not in contradiction, and neither is "Thou shalt not kill." in error or contradiction to scripture, or the SoP/ToJ.

As I said, you have things eternal, and things temporary confused. That confusion remains in your response. You read incorrectly. Please take this time to go back and carefully and prayerfully read what I stated. Do not be so quick to respond to my replies. They are carefully given to you.

I was not the one who desired controversy. I was posting in this thread just fine, until a certain someone interrupted with some assertions, that needed to be put into check. I asked questions.

I hope yet that you may understand what you are doing still and repent.
Posted By: Green Cochoa

Re: Bible Doctrines affected by Modern Versions - 07/18/21 06:02 AM

Matthew,

Originally Posted by Matthew 10vs8
Can you point to any place where I stated it was a sin to "kill" insects on this present earth?


Speaking of the Ten Commandments, you said:

Originally Posted by Matthew 10vs8
"Kill" is perfectly valid. Why? Becuase God's Ten Commandments are eternal principles, they also exist in Heaven, and as such, even to take the life of one of God's lesser creatures (cat, dog, cow, etc) is to break the commandment, since He was the one who gave them all life.

The commandment is not simply against "murder" (which deals in only, or exclusively, things of mankind, or angel-kind). I could never say, not to "murder" a dog, a cat, a cow, etc. I could only say not to "kill" them.


The logic is simple. You have said yourself that "Thou shalt not kill" includes the killing of animals. You have said also that: "God's Ten Commandments are eternal principles, they also exist in Heaven, and as such, even to take the life of one of God's lesser creatures (cat, dog, cow, etc) is to break the commandment, since He was the one who gave them all life."

That made your point very clear. You attested that killing animals was a sin. If you now deny having said this, you are not being honest with yourself nor with others reading here.

The only way for you to deny that you had said that killing animals was a sin would be for you to now tell us that it is not a sin to break the Ten Commandments--because you made it very clear that it violated those commandments to kill animals. If you believe it is not a sin to break God's Ten Commandments, as the Bible teaches (see 1 John 3:4), you should probably not be posting here.

By the way, I agree that the principles of the Ten Commandments are eternal. That is why the distinction between "ratsach" [FORBIDDEN BY GOD] and other forms like "muwth" [COMMANDED BY GOD, and GOD SAYS HE WILL DO THIS], "nakah" [GOD SAYS HE HAS DONE THIS AND WILL DO IT], "harag" [COMMANDED BY GOD, and GOD SAYS HE WILL DO THIS], "shachat" [COMMANDED BY GOD], "zabach" [COMMANDED BY GOD], etc. is so important.

God does not command that which He has forbidden. That would make of God a liar, having contradicted Himself. But Numbers 23:19 tells us plainly that God does not lie; therefore, when Matthew alleges that God has contradicted Himself, we can know of a surety where the trouble is: Either we believe God, or man.

NOTE: This post was for the benefit of future readers here.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.
Posted By: Matthew 10vs8

Re: Bible Doctrines affected by Modern Versions - 07/18/21 07:16 AM

Originally Posted by Green Cochoa
Matthew,

Originally Posted by Matthew 10vs8
Can you point to any place where I stated it was a sin to "kill" insects on this present earth?


Speaking of the Ten Commandments, you said:

Originally Posted by Matthew 10vs8
"Kill" is perfectly valid. Why? Becuase God's Ten Commandments are eternal principles, they also exist in Heaven, and as such, even to take the life of one of God's lesser creatures (cat, dog, cow, etc) is to break the commandment, since He was the one who gave them all life.

The commandment is not simply against "murder" (which deals in only, or exclusively, things of mankind, or angel-kind). I could never say, not to "murder" a dog, a cat, a cow, etc. I could only say not to "kill" them.


The logic is simple. You have said yourself that "Thou shalt not kill" includes the killing of animals. You have said also that: "God's Ten Commandments are eternal principles, they also exist in Heaven, and as such, even to take the life of one of God's lesser creatures (cat, dog, cow, etc) is to break the commandment, since He was the one who gave them all life."

That made your point very clear. You attested that killing animals was a sin. If you now deny having said this, you are not being honest with yourself nor with others reading here.

The only way for you to deny that you had said that killing animals was a sin would be for you to now tell us that it is not a sin to break the Ten Commandments--because you made it very clear that it violated those commandments to kill animals. If you believe it is not a sin to break God's Ten Commandments, as the Bible teaches (see 1 John 3:4), you should probably not be posting here.

By the way, I agree that the principles of the Ten Commandments are eternal. That is why the distinction between "ratsach" [FORBIDDEN BY GOD] and other forms like "muwth" [COMMANDED BY GOD, and GOD SAYS HE WILL DO THIS], "nakah" [GOD SAYS HE HAS DONE THIS AND WILL DO IT], "harag" [COMMANDED BY GOD, and GOD SAYS HE WILL DO THIS], "shachat" [COMMANDED BY GOD], "zabach" [COMMANDED BY GOD], etc. is so important.

God does not command that which He has forbidden. That would make of God a liar, having contradicted Himself. But Numbers 23:19 tells us plainly that God does not lie; therefore, when Matthew alleges that God has contradicted Himself, we can know of a surety where the trouble is: Either we believe God, or man.

NOTE: This post was for the benefit of future readers here.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.


Green Cochoa,

Read what I said again. Slowly, and in the whole context of my statements. The context was "Heaven". "Ten Commandments are eternal principles, they also exist in Heaven ..."

I am talking about "eternal" things (not temporary existence here on this earth), and as such creatures that exist in Heaven (3rd) (and also as such in further context, the New Heaven and new Earth, not on this present earth), when the rest says, "... and as such, even to take the life of one of God's lesser creatures (cat, dog, cow, etc) is to break the commandment, since He was the one who gave them all life."

Do you think that the angelic beings of heaven are allowed to "kill" God's creatures there?

Do you think that we will be allowed to "kill" God's creatures in the New Heaven and New Earth, where dwelleth righteousness?

I then gave an example of how the commandment is not simply against "murder", in the context of applying to "Heaven" (3rd, and as such also the New Heavens and New Earth, where there is no more death), and the eternal principles as they exist there, not here.

I also showed the difference between "murder" and "kill" by a phrasal example.

"The commandment is not simply against "murder" (which deals in only, or exclusively, things of mankind, or angel-kind). I could never say, not to "murder" a dog, a cat, a cow, etc. I could only say not to "kill" them."

I am not saying by the above, that one cannot, in this present earth "kill" a cow, etc, under certain circumstances. I am only giving an example of the difference in how the word "murder" and "kill" are used.

Did you also see how I included "angel-kind", in addition to man-kind (which is what you were referring to)? That "angel-kind" are beings of "Heaven"? I was attempting to get your attention to a higher sphere in which the commandment against killing applies.

Read the rest of my statements in the same context:

"... Do you think it might affect doctrine in the Ten Commandments, which would affect the doctrines of Heaven (3rd) also, especially in the New Heaven and New Earth (here) to merely address "murder" rather than "kill". Some persons I know of, teach that in the New Heavens and New Earth animal death continues, but not human death (since they are evolutionary minded and start in Genesis that way). ..."

Did you see how I spoke of "animal death" in affecting the "doctrines of Heaven (3rd)", and "New Heavens and New Earth"?

I do hope that you will allow me to explain my own statements in the context in which I wrote them?

Now, to speak even about this present earth. There are certain instances in which even killing creatures (non-human) on this earth is a sin, because it involves the acts of cruelty and characteristics of the devil in so doing. (being as clear as possible: I am not talking about swatting a mosquito or a fly (like vermin or pests, or poisonous and dangerous creatures, etc, or even taking the life of an animal for sustenance for those who do not know any better in regards diet, etc). I am talking about those instances in which cruel persons, simply kill an intelligent creature for their own pleasure, or torture such a creature to death for malevolent 'glee' or cause unwarranted and merciless pain, etc.

An example of this, may be found in Balaam's ass (donkey).

Pro_12:10? A righteous man regardeth the life of his beast: but the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel.

"... Balaam had given evidence of the spirit that controlled him, by his treatment of his beast. "A righteous man regardeth the life of his beast: but the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel." [443] Proverbs 12:10. Few realize as they should the sinfulness of abusing animals or leaving them to suffer from neglect. He who created man made the lower animals also, and "His tender mercies are over all His works." Psalm 145:9. The animals were created to serve man, but he has no right to cause them pain by harsh treatment or cruel exaction. {PP 442.5}

It is because of man's sin that "the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together." Romans 8:22. Suffering and death were thus entailed, not only upon the human race, but upon the animals. Surely, then, it becomes man to seek to lighten, instead of increasing, the weight of suffering which his transgression has brought upon God's creatures. He who will abuse animals because he has them in his power is both a coward and a tyrant. A disposition to cause pain, whether to our fellow men or to the brute creation, is satanic. Many do not realize that their cruelty will ever be known, because the poor dumb animals cannot reveal it. But could the eyes of these men be opened, as were those of Balaam, they would see an angel of God standing as a witness, to testify against them in the courts above. A record goes up to heaven, and a day is coming when judgment will be pronounced against those who abuse God's creatures. {PP 443.1}

When he beheld the messenger of God, Balaam exclaimed in terror, "I have sinned; for I knew not that thou stoodest in the way against me: now therefore, if it displease thee, I will get me back again." ..."

God said:

Rev_11:18? And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear thy name, small and great; and shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth.

Ok, this is my last attempt to get you to read and understand the context of my statement. if after this, you still cannot properly read, well, it is what is, and you may state what you will.
Posted By: kland

Re: Bible Doctrines affected by Modern Versions - 07/19/21 05:37 PM

Originally Posted by Green Cochoa
Have you seen what Mrs. White wrote about Bible versions/perversions? If not, please click HERE to see some of those statements. They are important.
Can you give at least one example of Ellen White talking about Bible versions?
Because you did not in your link.
Posted By: Matthew 10vs8

Re: Bible Doctrines affected by Modern Versions - 07/19/21 11:45 PM

Originally Posted by Green Cochoa
Matthew,

Take a deep breath. I am not your enemy. We wrestle not against flesh and blood...remember?

Have you seen what Mrs. White wrote about Bible versions/perversions? If not, please click HERE to see some of those statements. They are important. ...

God bless,

Green Cochoa.

Wanted to thank you again for the link to those Manuscript quotes. Great stuff. I will be definitely passing them on to my sphere of influence. I have personally added them to my collection of citation on these matters.

[as a PS, I love Benjamin G. Wilkinson's material, and I have also read the Standish brothers (Russell and Colin), Walter J. Veith's, Frank W. Hardy, and Vance Ferrell's material, M. L. Andreasen, Sharon Thomas Crews, Dan Andries, H. H. Meyers, also, with many others non-Seventh-day Adventist (Gail Riplinger, Peter S Ruckman, Sam Gipp, David Otis Fuller, Dean John William Burgon, James Jasper Ray, Lawrence M. Vance; David W. Daniels, Will Kinney (Brand Plucked), Floyd Nolan Jones, David Blunt, Alan O'Reilly, D. A. Waite [and D.B.Society], Jack Moorman, Jack McElroy, H. N. Harkell, Erasmus, King James I, Tyndale, Wycliffe, Genevans, etc, and as well as heard James White (Reformed 'Evangelical'; though much of his material is simply erroneous), John Ankerberg, Walter Martin, West and Hort's personal letters, etc.
Posted By: Rick H

Re: Bible Doctrines affected by Modern Versions - 08/18/21 01:14 PM

Originally Posted by Matthew 10vs8
Originally Posted by Green Cochoa
Matthew,

Take a deep breath. I am not your enemy. We wrestle not against flesh and blood...remember?

Have you seen what Mrs. White wrote about Bible versions/perversions? If not, please click HERE to see some of those statements. They are important. ...

God bless,

Green Cochoa.

Wanted to thank you again for the link to those Manuscript quotes. Great stuff. I will be definitely passing them on to my sphere of influence. I have personally added them to my collection of citation on these matters.

[as a PS, I love Benjamin G. Wilkinson's material, and I have also read the Standish brothers (Russell and Colin), Walter J. Veith's, Frank W. Hardy, and Vance Ferrell's material, M. L. Andreasen, Sharon Thomas Crews, Dan Andries, H. H. Meyers, also, with many others non-Seventh-day Adventist (Gail Riplinger, Peter S Ruckman, Sam Gipp, David Otis Fuller, Dean John William Burgon, James Jasper Ray, Lawrence M. Vance; David W. Daniels, Will Kinney (Brand Plucked), Floyd Nolan Jones, David Blunt, Alan O'Reilly, D. A. Waite [and D.B.Society], Jack Moorman, Jack McElroy, H. N. Harkell, Erasmus, King James I, Tyndale, Wycliffe, Genevans, etc, and as well as heard James White (Reformed 'Evangelical'; though much of his material is simply erroneous), John Ankerberg, Walter Martin, West and Hort's personal letters, etc.
The fact that it has a direct correlation on Adventist beliefs and some of the basic doctrines of faith, is very telling..
Posted By: kland

Re: Bible Doctrines affected by Modern Versions - 08/18/21 03:20 PM

But can anyone give at least one example of Ellen White talking about Bible versions?
Because I have not seen any here.
Posted By: kland

Re: Bible Doctrines affected by Modern Versions - 01/26/22 03:38 PM

Guess no one has....

Anyway, contrary to what some here are saying, I found the following video from Veith somewhat informative. It is giving the idea that some manuscripts (not final English versions, mind you) may not be legitimate. I recall one video from Veith where he talked for a whole hour on how one English version is different than another. I am not aware of anyone disputing that different versions are different. Just what is most correct, that is, if any could be considered more correct.

Unfortunately, towards the back half of the video, he got off the wagon and started talking about English wording. Too bad. Does he mean to say, as some so here so indicate, that only those who read ancient English will know the truth? I say NOT.

Walter Veith & Martin Smith - Gnosticism and The Word Of God - What's Up Prof? 90
Posted By: Daryl

Re: Bible Doctrines affected by Modern Versions - 02/10/22 01:42 PM

It seems to me that EGW used, as in quoted, other English Bible versions, but would need to look into that further to verify that.
© 2022 Maritime 2nd Advent Christian Believers OnLine Forums Consisting Mainly of Both Members & Friends of the SDA (Seventh-day Adventist) Church