Important! Scripture translation altered on purpose!

[justme007]

Hello brothers and sisters,

In order to avoid posting links, I will just tell you what to search for:

1 Peter 4:6 commentary by bishop Ellicott. I encountered it on the Bible Hub website. 

Notice that at the beginning of his commentary he states something like "this seems to be one of those rare cases when translation was altered in order to fit the doctrine." 

And it becomes clear and apparent, if one were to click the "GRK" button. Even if one doesn't speak Greek at all, like me for example, it becomes clear that the words "those who are now" are absent from The Original!

The most significant one of the inserted words is "now". It completely changes the meaning! From the implication that they were dead at the moment of hearing THE GOOD NEWS!, we get the implication that they were alive at the time of hearing THE SUPREME TRUTH! and are currently dead. 

According to bishop Ellicott that was done deliberately. Take a look for yourselves, research the subject! 

Brothers and sisters, GOD'S!!!!!!!!!!!!! WORD IS UNALTERABLE!!!!!!!! IT HAS BEEN PRESERVED through the centuries!!!!!!! The current debates about the actual Source Texts are very "minimal" and do not alter THE DOCTRINE OF THE SUPREME TRUTH!!!!!!!!! they do not alter THE DOCTRINE produced by correct translation of All Scriptures! 

The only examples where the futile attempts of those, described in Job 25:6, to alter something could be seen in commentaries/interpretations and, fortunately very rarely, in translations. 

I don't want to judge whoever is responsible for that. I don't know what their motives were. Judging someone is forbidden - MATTHEW 7:1. However, the consequences of their actions have to be corrected as soon as they are noticed! As soon as we see something like that we need to do our best to "blow the whistle"! 

I would like to say a lot more on  the subject, however, I just want to do my best to report what I was BLESSED with noticing. 

[ayin jade]

? 

1 Peter 4:6 For to this end the gospel was preached also to the dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the Spirit.
 

[justme007]

If we were to look on The Bible Hub website, it lists all different Versions of The SCRIPTURES. Many of them, including the NIV, have "to those who are now dead" instead of "to the dead".

Edited June 25, 2019 by justme007

[GandalfTheWise]

6 hours ago, justme007 said:

Hello brothers and sisters,

In order to avoid posting links, I will just tell you what to search for:

1 Peter 4:6 commentary by bishop Ellicott. I encountered it on the Bible Hub website. 

 Notice that at the beginning of his commentary he states something like "this seems to be one of those rare cases when translation was altered in order to fit the doctrine."

Note that Ellicott was the editor and a contributor to the series of commentaries bearing his name.  The I Peter commentary was written by Rev. A.J. Mason in 1879.  Note that Mason was Anglican. He was author of a work entitled "The Relation of Confirmation to Baptism: as taught in Holy Scripture and the Fathers" in 1893.  I could not find an online version of this work to skim but references to it by Anglican conferences strongly suggest it was a standard reference used to provide a biblical framework for confirmation after baptism as a normal practice for the church.  I don't bring this up to debate the point but rather to point out that Mason's commentary (like any other commentator) will have sections swayed by their beliefs on various things.  I think it very important to consult a series of commentaries of differing viewpoints on any particular passage or one runs the risk of becoming indoctrinated rather than educated.

Considering this commentary on I Peter was written well over a century ago, which translation is he referring to and for what reason?   I think it important to know what translation he is referring to and what exact words he is saying were altered and by whom.  I skimmed Mason's entire commentary on I Peter and couldn't find what he was referring to.    Given the 1879 date of publication, this is well before any modern translations.  To use Mason's words as support for preservation of a particular text or translation (such as the Textus Receptus and KJV) is unwarranted.  Mason's commentary in I Peter 4:1 explicitly supports Tischendorf's and Lachman's choice of Greek variations over and against the Textus Receptus.  There is a similar comment in I Peter 5:1 in which he explicitly says that The best text preserves the word “therefore” after “elders.” which picks a non-Textus Receptus Greek text over the Textus Receptus.  He clearly practiced some amount of textual and translational study comparing various Greek texts and translations and then choosing and commenting on which he thought was best for a particular passage.

As far as I can tell, there appear to be different ways commentators approach I Peter 4:6.  Some (such as Mason and the Pulpit Commentary on the Bible Hub site) take 4:6 as referring back to 3:19 where Christ is said to have preached to the spirits in prison.  Others take 4:6 as referring to those who are currently either spiritually alive or dead as living human beings in the immediate context of the previous few verses.  Still others take it as referring to those who are living in Christ and those who have died in Christ.

Here is a comment on the NetBible on this verse (which uses "now").   In context the phrase those who are dead refers to those now dead who had accepted the gospel while they were still living and had suffered persecution for their faith. Though they “suffered judgment” in this earthly life (i.e., they died, in the midst of physical abuse from the ungodly), they will enjoy life from God in the spiritual, heavenly realm because of the gospel (v. 6b). It clearly does not assume a second chance for conversion offered to unbelievers who had died; why would Peter urge people to suffer in this life for the sake of the gospel if he believed that mercy would be extended to all the dead in the hereafter (cf. 2:7-8; 4:1-5, 12-19)?  (https://netbible.org/bible/1+Peter+4)

9 hours ago, justme007 said:

According to bishop Ellicott that was done deliberately. Take a look for yourselves, research the subject! 

It was likely AJ Mason (author) and not Ellicott (editor) who in 1879 who made an ambiguous comment without referencing the translation he had in mind nor spelling out what the change was in 4:6.  He himself in his comments (https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/ebc/1-peter-4.html) on I Peter 4:3 says that "For the time past of our life.—There are two words in the English here which do not stand in the true text, and sadly impede the sense. They are “of our life,” and “us.” The first is added by some scribe to point the contrast with “the rest of his time.” The second—which should be “you,” if anything at all—is simply put to fill the gap after the word “suffice.” If “our life” and “us” were right, we should have St. Peter, quite unlike his wont, identifying himself with the bad life here described, as though he himself had shared in it."  In this, he is directly criticizing the Textus Receptus for adding "us" (and saying it should be "you" if anything) and the KJV translators for adding "our" (in "of our life") where it does not occur in the TR or any Greek text.  His comments on 4:3 essentially back up modern translations as being more correct than the KJV.  If one quotes him as an authority, he's basically saying the TR and KJV have added to scripture with a change in meaning in verse 4:3.

FWIW, this post is a reflection of how I research a subject such as this.  Mason was clearly practicing some form of textual studies in which he compared various Greek texts along with various translations and used his best judgement as to what most accurately reflected the words and meaning of the original writings.  Cherry picking one of his sentences in isolation from others in nearby verses to support the idea of preservation of particular texts is simply sloppy and unconvincing.  It is ironic to me that Mason's approach to scripture is one that is generally condemned by text preservationists.

[simplejeff]

17 hours ago, justme007 said:

it becomes clear that the words "those who are now" are absent from The Original!

There are A LOT of words absent from The Original ......  no surprise really.   No need to be upset.

It gets worse though,  when getting in to the teachings of any church - not just A LOT of words absent from the Original,  but ALL NEW IDEAS PUT FORTH as if it is God's Word/ Plan/ Purpose !!!!......  yet often 'instead' of God's Word/ Plan and Purpose ----- just like the religious teachers always did (do?) - putting their own traditions over the Word of God.

[simplejeff]

17 hours ago, justme007 said:

According to bishop Ellicott that was done deliberately. Take a look for yourselves, research the subject! 

Well,   Ellicott might still not be someone to follow (everything is subject to testing) .  

A lot of religious teachers did the same thing ON PURPOSE (=deliberately) .....   throughout history. 

[justme007]

4 hours ago, GandalfTheWise said:

Note that Ellicott was the editor and a contributor to the series of commentaries bearing his name.  The I Peter commentary was written by Rev. A.J. Mason in 1879.  Note that Mason was Anglican. He was author of a work entitled "The Relation of Confirmation to Baptism: as taught in Holy Scripture and the Fathers" in 1893.  I could not find an online version of this work to skim but references to it by Anglican conferences strongly suggest it was a standard reference used to provide a biblical framework for confirmation after baptism as a normal practice for the church.  I don't bring this up to debate the point but rather to point out that Mason's commentary (like any other commentator) will have sections swayed by their beliefs on various things.  I think it very important to consult a series of commentaries of differing viewpoints on any particular passage or one runs the risk of becoming indoctrinated rather than educated.

Considering this commentary on I Peter was written well over a century ago, which translation is he referring to and for what reason?   I think it important to know what translation he is referring to and what exact words he is saying were altered and by whom.  I skimmed Mason's entire commentary on I Peter and couldn't find what he was referring to.    Given the 1879 date of publication, this is well before any modern translations.  To use Mason's words as support for preservation of a particular text or translation (such as the Textus Receptus and KJV) is unwarranted.  Mason's commentary in I Peter 4:1 explicitly supports Tischendorf's and Lachman's choice of Greek variations over and against the Textus Receptus.  There is a similar comment in I Peter 5:1 in which he explicitly says that The best text preserves the word “therefore” after “elders.” which picks a non-Textus Receptus Greek text over the Textus Receptus.  He clearly practiced some amount of textual and translational study comparing various Greek texts and translations and then choosing and commenting on which he thought was best for a particular passage.

As far as I can tell, there appear to be different ways commentators approach I Peter 4:6.  Some (such as Mason and the Pulpit Commentary on the Bible Hub site) take 4:6 as referring back to 3:19 where Christ is said to have preached to the spirits in prison.  Others take 4:6 as referring to those who are currently either spiritually alive or dead as living human beings in the immediate context of the previous few verses.  Still others take it as referring to those who are living in Christ and those who have died in Christ.

Here is a comment on the NetBible on this verse (which uses "now").   In context the phrase those who are dead refers to those now dead who had accepted the gospel while they were still living and had suffered persecution for their faith. Though they “suffered judgment” in this earthly life (i.e., they died, in the midst of physical abuse from the ungodly), they will enjoy life from God in the spiritual, heavenly realm because of the gospel (v. 6b). It clearly does not assume a second chance for conversion offered to unbelievers who had died; why would Peter urge people to suffer in this life for the sake of the gospel if he believed that mercy would be extended to all the dead in the hereafter (cf. 2:7-8; 4:1-5, 12-19)?  (https://netbible.org/bible/1+Peter+4)

It was likely AJ Mason (author) and not Ellicott (editor) who in 1879 who made an ambiguous comment without referencing the translation he had in mind nor spelling out what the change was in 4:6.  He himself in his comments (https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/ebc/1-peter-4.html) on I Peter 4:3 says that "For the time past of our life.—There are two words in the English here which do not stand in the true text, and sadly impede the sense. They are “of our life,” and “us.” The first is added by some scribe to point the contrast with “the rest of his time.” The second—which should be “you,” if anything at all—is simply put to fill the gap after the word “suffice.” If “our life” and “us” were right, we should have St. Peter, quite unlike his wont, identifying himself with the bad life here described, as though he himself had shared in it."  In this, he is directly criticizing the Textus Receptus for adding "us" (and saying it should be "you" if anything) and the KJV translators for adding "our" (in "of our life") where it does not occur in the TR or any Greek text.  His comments on 4:3 essentially back up modern translations as being more correct than the KJV.  If one quotes him as an authority, he's basically saying the TR and KJV have added to scripture with a change in meaning in verse 4:3.

FWIW, this post is a reflection of how I research a subject such as this.  Mason was clearly practicing some form of textual studies in which he compared various Greek texts along with various translations and used his best judgement as to what most accurately reflected the words and meaning of the original writings.  Cherry picking one of his sentences in isolation from others in nearby verses to support the idea of preservation of particular texts is simply sloppy and unconvincing.  It is ironic to me that Mason's approach to scripture is one that is generally condemned by text preservationists.

My brother, the reason This Particular Verse is so important is the following:

The second chance!

 Without judging anyone, I want to point out the general observation - throughout hystory some groups might have to tried to alter THE SUPREME DOCTRINE - meaning the correct understanding of The Bible, based on proper translation of the Source Texts! But PRAISE THE LORD!!!!!!!!!!!!! Psalms 62!!!!!!!! 

I'm saying "might" because again, I want to make sure not to judge anyone. 

Let's analyze everything that is going on:

1) It is easy to see that the vast majority of the denominations today deny the second chance - repentance after death.

2) Moreover, they say that salvation depends on wether or not we - the humans make the right choice. And before someone starts criticizing me here, please try to understand what im trying to say. Under no circumstances should we ever deliberately make wrong choices. But, one of the worst wrong choices that a person could make is to underestimate THE POWER OF GOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Another one of the worst wrong choices is underestimating THE LOVE OF GOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 

The current post is the result of about at least a year of research that I was BLESSED with the ability to do, research of many sources and many documents. 

I would like to write a long detailed post where I will try to back up everything I'm saying, using The Bible! Here I was just trying to warn everyone about the existence of A Verse that has been deliberately altered to fit some doctrinal ideas - ideas that are not supported by The Bible, as I will try and prove. 

PRAISE THE LORD!!!!!!!!!!!!!! FOREVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 

[Willa]

I do not believe second chances are possible.  We do not see this in the rest of Scripture, in fact we see the opposite.  Once to die, after that, the judgement.  So an isolated text that is even doubtful whether that is the correct translation is too flimsy to base a doctrine on.  Most other respected commentaries indicate that they are referring to those now dead who had received Christ while alive.  Others think it refers to those who were in the bosom of Abraham that Christ preached to while He was dead.    None has believed it means that our loved ones who die without Christ will have a second chance before they come to the great white throne judgement.

[Sharky and George]

I have not looked into this translation error yet but yes it does go on.

What also worries me too is pluralism i.e. all god's are the same.

Not even professional philosophers can adequately answer this:

What is the truth in "truth is relative" and dont give a relative answer.

Bear this logic in mind so you are not swayed.

Oh piglets!

Edited June 25, 2019 by Sharky and George
Accidently said scripture like it was me duh

[justme007]

2 hours ago, Willa said:

I do not believe second chances are possible.  We do not see this in the rest of Scripture, in fact we see the opposite.  Once to die, after that, the judgement.  So an isolated text that is even doubtful whether that is the correct translation is too flimsy to base a doctrine on.  Most other respected commentaries indicate that they are referring to those now dead who had received Christ while alive.  Others think it refers to those who were in the bosom of Abraham that Christ preached to while He was dead.    None has believed it means that our loved ones who die without Christ will have a second chance before they come to the great white throne judgement.

But we must base our understanding solely on The Bible! Dont you agree that commentaries should only be consulted in cases where after a thorough search we are genuinely unable to find any Verses that resolve an issue? Actually, that is what The Bible itself clearly orders us to do!

And 1 Peter 4:6 is by far not the only Verse that supports the second chance point of view! 

Please, brothers and sisters, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that it's ok to sin. On the contrary, I'm trying my best to do and say the opposite, as much as I can in my sinful human state!

Let's look at some BLESSED Verses:

-1 Peter 3:18-22;

-Romans 11:25-32 - another set of Verses that i recently saw was being misinterpreted, just after a brief research into It's interpretation;

-1 Timothy 2:4;

-1 Timothy 4:10;

- MATTHEW 19:25-26 - 1 Timothy 4:10 should be looked at together with This BLESSED Verse!;

- Something I just realized today: Luke 13:35 in combination with 2 Peter 3:9;

- Again, 2 Peter 3:9 in combination with MATTHEW 19:25-26.

The above is not the complete list.

Edited June 26, 2019 by justme007