Corrupted Text

Bible Believers ChurchThe reason that people don't believe in Biblical inerrancy anymore is because men have received the corrupt Alexandrian manuscripts rejected by the godly men of the Reformation and the true church in every century since Pentecost. The Nestle-Aland or UBS Greek text is based upon these 45 corrupt manuscripts. This equates to the NIV, NASB, etc being corrupted because of their corrupted base. Just check it out for yourself. Turn in one of these versions to 1 Tim. 3:16. There is no more statement of God being manifest in the flesh. They take out "God" and put "He who". No statement of the deity of Christ like in the KJV (Textus Receptus - from Pure Majority Text - over 5,200 Greek manuscripts). You can turn to Phil. 2:6 in the NIV, we read that Jesus didn't think He could be equal with God! But if you go to the Textus Receptus based KJV, you read that He thought it not robbery to be equal with God. There He knew he was equal! What is happening? Welcome to the great apostasy.I encourage you all to visit our site and read "Which Version is the Bible" by Dr. Floyd Jones. It will change your life and strengthen your faith in God's holy word.

ReceivedText wrote:Bible Believers ChurchThe reason that people don't believe in Biblical inerrancy anymore is because men have received the corrupt Alexandrian manuscripts rejected by the godly men of the Reformation and the true church in every century since Pentecost. The Nestle-Aland or UBS Greek text is based upon these 45 corrupt manuscripts. This equates to the NIV, NASB, etc being corrupted because of their corrupted base. Just check it out for yourself. Turn in one of these versions to 1 Tim. 3:16. There is no more statement of God being manifest in the flesh. They take out "God" and put "He who". No statement of the deity of Christ like in the KJV (Textus Receptus - from Pure Majority Text - over 5,200 Greek manuscripts). You can turn to Phil. 2:6 in the NIV, we read that Jesus didn't think He could be equal with God! But if you go to the Textus Receptus based KJV, you read that He thought it not robbery to be equal with God. There He knew he was equal! What is happening? Welcome to the great apostasy.I encourage you all to visit our site and read "Which Version is the Bible" by Dr. Floyd Jones. It will change your life and strengthen your faith in God's holy word.The word of God is breathed from the very spirit of GOd and it needs to be interpreted by that same spirit and that spirit teach us. Anything outside of that just doesn't work. The problem is not in the translation of the text itself but in the mode of interpretation namely someone at some point used the carnal mind to intepret what is spirit. Even if the bible were to have been translated directly using the very original manuscripts, and yet the holy spirit was not sonsulted for the interpretation part, the scriptures mean nothing, they become a colllection of stories for teaching lessons.

Look at all the countries in the world where there are christians being persecuted for following Jesus and you will see millions of people who do not speak english and will never read the KJV. Are you saying that they are not saved because they did not read the KJV? Are you saying that the Spirit of God cannot fill someone and teach them all things that are true and not a lie without having access to the KJV?There are many translations being used throughout the world that say that you MUST die to yourself, carry your cross daily and follow Jesus to have eternal life.If you put these opinions upon others and dispise those that use another translation, then you are following another Jesus. I pray that you will repent and come into a true relationship with the Real Jesus.

tedlock wrote:If you put these opinions upon others and dispise those that use another translation, then you are following another Jesus. I pray that you will repent and come into a true relationship with the Real Jesus.Hi Ted,I think you may misunderstand many of us here. It's not a matter of "either you use the KJV or you're not saved", but the KJV is a superior translation. For myself, a relatively recent convert from the NIV (New Internation Version) to the NIV (Never Improved Version - not my joke, blame Ravenhill for that one:-)), came to it kicking and screaming. I am aware of some of the inconsistant tranlation points in in the KJV (how did they ever translate Jakobus as James. Hmmmm...could King James have had anything to do it;-)) and the whole, "The Bible was written in the common toungue" arguments, but for me, it's no a matter of KJV being more accurate, as much as Elizabethan English being a more precise language to our modern equivalent.If someone was to say, "That was wicked!" back then, it would be no doubt that they were expressing disgust, but now... and that's just an obivous situation. There are very few "hard words" that need to learned, where NIV has a multitude of multi-sylable words that need explaining. If not now, then definately in the next 5-10 years, when all the meanings change again, as a result of school yard slang speaking youths growing up and forcing there words on an unsuspecting older generation.The reality is, right now the English language has turned a corner, where words are defined in the midst of their usage, with sit-com television creating catch phranes that become the language used. For example, phrases like "Doh", "Gotta love the (insert person's name here)", "Gnarly dude", etc...(having trouble coming up with specific examples under pressure. May edit some in later) are slowly erroding our language to where we have began to "..call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter" (see Isaiah 5:20)."Come on", I hear you say, "surely it's not that bad." Well consider this. Why do all the news reports on criminals, who should be given lighter sentances due to their regreting their actions refer to them, as "repentant"? Apparently that all began with a latin translation of the Greek word "metanoia" with "penatensia" (sorry if my spelling is bad).My initial inspiration for switching, was the preaching of men like Keith Daniel, Paris Reidhead, Leonard Ravenhill, and the like here. I also figured Finney, Moody, Wesley, Whitfield, and the like used it, so if it's good enough for them, then it's good enough for me (even if the Apostle Paul didn't use it;-)).Personally, I don't so much turn to the KJV as a statment of its accuracy, but as a statement of my language's incosistancy. Sure other translations have something to say, but let me ask one last question. If you had a choice, would you drink filtered tap water or drop a cup into the Nile and take a gulp? You do know that they'll don't quench your thirst, but who knows what you're getting from the second option.

Having the Peshitta as a Reference has made it possible to correct numerous Translation Errors in all later Translations of the Bible.This is just not true. The case for Aramaic primacy is not supported by any serious evangelical scholars. It is a fad.

The reason that people don't believe in Biblical inerrancy anymore is because men have received the corrupt Alexandrian manuscripts rejected by the godly men of the Reformation and the true church in every century since Pentecost. The Nestle-Aland or UBS Greek text is based upon these 45 corrupt manuscripts. This equates to the NIV, NASB, etc being corrupted because of their corrupted base.Anyone who could write this has no understanding at all of the process of transmission or the nature of 'textual criticism'. Any writer who can title his book "Which Version is the Bible?" is not worth reading. btw I am an avid user and supporter of the KJV but this kind of polemic does not help our cause.

I think it is just amazing that people would make some of the statements here without even looking at the book. I challenge you all to read at LEAST the first chapter.As to my knowledge of the transmission of the Biblical Text, I am quite knowledgeable. This is not a "thee" or "thou" issue here. This is a MANUSCRIPT issue.There are two streams of manuscripts. One from Alexandria. One from Antioch. They both disagree. They both can't be right.But I don't plan on taking the space here to type what is already in the book. I challenge you all to read it."He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him." - Proverbs 18:13Blessings,TRHere's the link again: http://www.bbconfire.com

The problem is not in the translation of the text itself but in the mode of interpretation namely someone at some point used the carnal mind to intepret what is spirit.So can we all go and buy the New World Translation, since the translation of the text doesn't matter? Your logic is flawed.You are right that it is the Holy Spirit who reveals Scripture. You are wrong that it doesn't matter if we have God's perfect word.Much love in Christ,TR

What is the error difference between the Alexandrian and the Textus Reciptus as I do not know Greek I am unsure?

TRThere are some versions of the bible out there that are just way off the mark, I agree with you on that. Common sense would tell you to leave those alone. HOWEVER, even if we had the very original manuscripts and translated those directly, the translation was flawless, and we had not the Holy Spirit to interpret them and teach them to us IT WOULD DO NO GOOD. The Pharisees had perfect TRANSLATIONS, or MANUSCRIPTS of scripture and yet Christ had nothing good to say of them, there was something missing, the spirit of God. See look the only way we can have God's PERFECT word is to have GOD's PERFECT SPIRIT INTERPRET AND INSTRUCT US. We have libraries upon libraries of so-called knowledge of God some of which really was born of the instruction of the Holy Spirit and the rest of it is just garbage. If it were all inspired by the Holy Spirit I tell you the power that we would be wielding would have satan and his minions begging to be cast into the lake of fire. We need to be seeking out that which was born of the spirit and nothing more or less. What is about to happen is going require that those who are really about God's business to be walking in the spirit lest they get swept away by the impending judgment.You also wrote:I think it is just amazing that people would make some of the statements here without even looking at the book. I challenge you all to read at LEAST the first chapter.As to my knowledge of the transmission of the Biblical Text, I am quite knowledgeable. This is not a "thee" or "thou" issue here. This is a MANUSCRIPT issue.There are two streams of manuscripts. One from Alexandria. One from Antioch. They both disagree. They both can't be right.But I don't plan on taking the space here to type what is already in the book. I challenge you all to read it."He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him." - Proverbs 18:13Blessings,TRUntil this day I had no idea that there were 2 streams of manuscripts from which the bible came which disagree. I thought there was just the one that people translated differently for whatever reason. I’m not sure how many people have even hear a rumor hinting of any of this but I can say that it was a first for me. It seems you have studied this area and know it well (mentioned it in the post that you know about transmission of text) but how many others are out there who have had the benefit of your study of your being taught these things by someone? Probably not very many, I could be wrong though. Since I don’t have that benefit has it jeopardized my own relationship with God? Since I don’t have a KJV (which I hear is a very accurate translation) or another accurate translation has my salvation and relationship with God been forfeited? No!. I submit to you all that God is God and He does as He pleases. If He can use Paul who persecuted Christians as his favorite pastime to His glory by turning Paul into a Christian superchamp, surely a poorly translated version of the bible in God’s hands can still be powerful. John of Patmos wrote the revelation by inspiration of the Holy spirit, He was no scholar of the scriptures , he was a fisherman (if I’m wrong please correct me) and yet the one book the spirit inspired him to write has bamboozled the most learned of men 2000+ yrs later. How could this be so? The spirit with which many men have long-used to interpret scripture is one that wants to glorify men, hence all the confusion. This is evidence of a deep need by the church of now to reach back and tap into the Holy Spirit that drove our forerunners. How long have these bad manuscripts been in circulation? People still have been saved and are still being saved right? That would seem to say that the power is not in the translation but in the source of all knowledge of the scripture, God Himself! When the Holy spirit leads me through scripture I just believe that He will minister to me according to God’s will and wisdom and leave it at that. I have a good news bible and an n.i.v. that are both different but I have been shown that the meaning and power of the word comes from the throne of God Himself and we have access to that through Christ and the ministry of the holy spirit. This is not an attack but a testimony of what God has shown me. God is the source of all power and knowledge concerning Him. If we look beyond the translation, there will we find the power we seek. If we let the Holy Spirit minister to us rather than rely on our minds (which cannot fathom what is spirit) then we will find that there is nothing to disagree about because ALL will be made clear by the Holy spirit. Let us seek the spirit in all things. God is spirit and He requires worship in spirit and truth and meeting Him in spirit. THIS IS THE KEY to pleasing God and the key to all things concerning Him, without it, pleasing God or truly knowing Him is not possible.

What is the error difference between the Alexandrian and the Textus Reciptus as I do not know Greek I am unsure?I don't know Greek or any other language which scripture was translated from. it is good to know that there are at least 2 of us :-P

Hello Gentlemen ~ forgive me for interrupting here and possibly putting a twist to this discussion, my main reason for coming to this site was to find another way to explain the Trinity to my dad ... and here is a pretty good spot to drop in ~ the mention of "New World Translation". :-D I tend to 'favor' the Baptist church because of the learning and delving into the Bible. While my dad has the same desire of attending a church that teaches from the Bible, he believes to have met this desire through the Jehovah Witness'.He and I have had numerous discussions, over the past two years, about the NWT version and the versions I use (NKJV mostly, KJV and NIV). He believes the versions I use are incorrect, while I believe the NWT is incorrect.I've been thankful my dad has been attending church with his grandkids and myself (a baptist church), but now he has become irritated that we believe (and actually use a Bible version wherein Jesus proclaims) He (Jesus) is equal to God the Father.Being rather ignorant of who translated what, where, when, why, and how, I don't want to miss this opportunity of another way to explain the Trinity and Jesus' Deity to my dad ... not to mention his refusing to attend church with us anymore. His attending has meant alot to not only myself, but to my teenage daughter as well, whose dad would and will not step foot into a church claiming agnostic or atheism, depending what is the subject. :roll: Thank you for letting me be a billy goat, who currently resides in TN and who is a stay-at-home mom. Darraugh

We have chatted over this subject in Which Version and in other places. Rather that go through the discussion again I thought folks might like to visit here.

He and I have had numerous discussions, over the past two years, about the NWT version and the versions I use (NKJV mostly, KJV and NIV). He believes the versions I use are incorrect, while I believe the NWT is incorrect.Hithe New World Translation in an in-house Jehovah's Witnesses translation designed to support their own doctrines. It will interprete (and misinterprete) as suits their theories but is not regarded seriously by any non-JW Bible students.One of their most blatant pieces of propaganda is their use of the word Jehovah in the New Testament. The word Jehovah never appears in any known Greek manuscript, even though a Greek version (transliteration) was available at the time. I have talked with doorstep JWs and their senior local officials at length on this topic. At first they say the word Jehovah is in the Greek manuscripts but when challenged to show some evidence they usually retreat to a position of saying that it must have been removed during the earliest centuries of the Church. Needless to say there is absolutely no evidence for this.

Hi Darraugh,was to find another way to explain the Trinity to my dad ... I've been thankful my dad has been attending church with his grandkids and myself (a baptist church), but now he has become irritated that we believe (and actually use a Bible version wherein Jesus proclaims) He (Jesus) is equal to God the Father.I don't want to miss this opportunity of another way to explain the Trinity and Jesus' Deity to my dad ... not to mention his refusing to attend church with us anymore. His attending has meant alot to not only myself, but to my teenage daughter as well, whose dad would and will not step foot into a church claiming agnostic or atheism, depending what is the subject.Maybe and hopefully that 'irritation' is the beginning of a stirring of the Holy Spirit, inclined to think so just from what you have stated here. Seems often times it is the disturbing things that can grab our attention more so than the 'convincing', otherwise why bother?We do have amongst our members at least one who would be well versed as a former JW. Do check back, he has a heart as big as the sun...(Sorry, didn't mean to put you on the spot there brother ;-) )

I quite agree with philologos. I think he gave you some good and very accurate information. Just wanted to add my agreement. :-D Along with their addition of Jehovah in the NT, they use the faulty text created by Westcott and Hort in 1881. In many ways, the NWT agrees with the NASB. While the NASB doesn't corrupt John 1:1, it does use the Alexandrian reading of John 1:18. Instead of reading of a "begotten Son," (KJV) we read of a "begotten God." (NAS, NWT) This was changed to agree with gnosticism and like philosophies of the second and third centuries. They looked at Jesus as a lesser god and not as God Almighty. Of course this is the JW view. Though JW's don't preach full gnosticism, the general heresy concerning the deity of Christ comes into play here. If you can take away a person's faith in their foundational text and replace it with the correct one, they have no option but to see the truth. What they do with it may be a different story. But that is where the precious Holy Ghost comes in to help.Blessings,RT

This was changed to agree with gnosticism and like philosophies of the second and third centuries.This may or may not be true. There is no historical evidence for the statement; it is historical conjecture.

Ironically, my dad had an opportunity to see how NWT erroneously translated "kurios" to "Jehovah", rather than to "Lord" (or is that 'LORD'? :-? ). I'm not sure which mis-translated verse, in NWT, wreaks more havoc ... Gen. 1:2 or John 1:1. However, these two verses are what my dad refers to in denying the Deity of Christ.I've been privileged to take Basic Theology from the former senior pastor at the church I attended in Illinois. The book we used was written by Charles Ryrie, which in my humble mumble opinion, is well written for us simple-minded folk. This book has come in handy many of times, in particular, when addressing translations of Hebrew and Greek, while trying to find additional insight for my dad's questioning.I quite agree with what was previously mentioned (can't remember by whom at the moment), the Holy Spirit helps us to understand God's Word, in addition to understanding the Triune God.~ Darraugh ~ :-D