Bible Problem

[Solus Christus]

On 7/3/2023 at 7:33 AM, WordSword said:

Which translation of the Bible do you use? Many are unaware that the manuscripts used for the modern translations are highly spurious, because of the numerous differences between them and the Traditional Text (TT). The manuscripts used for the TT (Majority Text, or Textus Receptus, or Received Text) are much latter (5 century and latter) than those used for the modern translations (MT). The MT manuscripts were not used for copying purposes like those of the TT, because they had too many errors and therefore were rejected and did not wear out. This is what allowed the modern text to gain much ascendancy in popularity, due to their antiquity (3-4th century). As there are many differences between the manuscripts use for the MT, due to omissions, transpositions and interpolations, the early church would not use them (Vaticanus, Sinaticus and Alexandrinus).

What we have today now is that there are so many differences in these modern translations that attempting to memorize Scripture is impossible; and you can’t use a concordance with them because of the above problems stated. This produces a much less significant text that many do not know which should be followed, and thus the usual response is not reading them very much.

In the Hebrew text there are no manuscripts that contain the phrase “the brother of” in 2Sam 21:19. But instead of adding this phrase to make it a truthful reading, the MT’s have omitted it as well, making it an errant reading. Thus, it should read “Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew the brother of Goliath.” But the MT has it “Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew Goliath,” making it an errant reading in conflict with 1Chron 20:5, which states that “Elhanan the son of Jair struck down Lahmi the brother of Goliath” (the NIV had this omission until correcting it recently).

In David Fuller’s book ”Which Bible,” he states that in the winter of 1928 there was a prominent publication company that had a newspaper come out saying “Who Killed Goliath.” He continues to say that “a cablegram came from the most learned and devout scholars of the Church of England” and they “said in substance, that the Revised Version was correct, that Elhanan and not David killed Goliath; and that there were many other things in the Bible which were the product of exaggeration, such as the story of Noah and the ark, Jonah and the whale, the garden of Eden and the longevity of Methuselah.”

The Three manuscripts mentioned above are pretty much the ones these detractors use for their translations (compared to thousands of manuscripts used for the TT). The Vaticanus was found on a shelf in the Vatican library, which was there unused for 1500 years; the Sinaticus was found at monastery, where a monk was using some of the parchments for kindling to get a fire started. Both of these codexes are the oldest manuscripts (3rd century), and this is why they are given too much attention.

A greater harm these MT’s produce is from their omitting Scripture. For one of hundreds of examples, they omitted the entire passage of 1Jn 5:7, which is the primary Trinity doctrine. 

Hope this is enough to get others interested in this problem, and I have a great deal more omissions to share on this if you are interested, just let me know.

God bless and always guide us to truth!

NC
 

A major difference is the following verse:

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

NASB: “For there are three that testify: the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement,” (1 John 5:7-8).

It is believed the additions to KIV text here is left overs from Latin, “The problem is that there is no Greek manuscript evidence for this longer reading prior to around the 16th century. It seems to be a carryover from the Latin, where it was perhaps added as an interpolation. At any rate, whatever the origin of the reading, it is not by any stretch of the imagination a part of the Majority Text. This is a good example of a stark and significant difference between the TR and M-text.”(https://carm.org/king-james-onlyism/differences-between-the-majority-text-and-the-textus-receptus/)

That said, I must admit I like The Trinity there in the text of KJV.  

 

Edited August 2, 2023 by Solus Christus

[Guest]

5 hours ago, enoob57 said:

Because of God’s warnings about His Word … I would think the last thing you would wish to do is to take anything away from God’s Word

Revelation 22:19 (KJV) [19] And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

The point being if God is about this in His last book of HIs Scripture I would conclude He is about the rest …. 

True, and all of the modern translations take away a significant amount of Scripture! The warning in Rev. primarily concerns the Book of Revelation, but it no less applies  to the remnant of His Word!

Appreciate your reply, and God bless! 

[Guest]

15 minutes ago, Solus Christus said:

 At any rate, whatever the origin of the reading, it is not by any stretch of the imagination a part of the Majority Text.

Hi, and thanks for your reply and comments! Though the majority of manuscripts do not contain the "Johannine Comma" (1Jn 5:7), the King James translators determined there were enough Greek manuscripts to include it in their translation. The KJV translators were a breed above the average scholar and were, in my opinion, well guided by God. 

[enoob57]

3 hours ago, teddyv said:

We want the best version of the original manuscripts. If things were added, no matter how well intentioned by subsequent scribes and translators, then they do not belong there.

Addition is no better or worse than subtraction.

I think you should read that Revelation passage more closely,..

[Solus Christus]

1 hour ago, WordSword said:

Hi, and thanks for your reply and comments! Though the majority of manuscripts do not contain the "Johannine Comma" (1Jn 5:7), the King James translators determined there were enough Greek manuscripts to include it in their translation. The KJV translators were a breed above the average scholar and were, in my opinion, well guided by God. 

I have read editor of The KJV was Sir Francis Bacon, was a Free Mason, which is a secret society that makes vows to other gods like Osiris and the spirit of light: which masons at 43rd degeee discover is Satan, “And no wonder, since Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light.” (2 Corinthians 11:14) 

Sir Francis Bacon KJV and the masons & Rosicrucians:

“The 1611 King James Bible is ornamented with Bacon’s symbols and in my own special copy of the record edition, also dated 1611, these symbols are Rosicrucianly marked to call the attention of the initiated to them and to tell them that the 1611 Bible is without possibility of doubt, one of Bacon’s books…..When Bacon was born, English as a literary language did not exist, but once he died he had succeeded in making the English language the noblest vehicle of thought ever possessed by mankind. This he accomplished merely by his Bible and his Shakespeare.” –Edwin D. Lawrence, author of Bacon is Shakespeare and The Shakespeare Myth from a lecture October 9, 1912

“…The Bible which all of us read and admire from a literary point of view because of it’s peculiar and beautiful English was written in that form by Bacon who invented and perfected that style of English expression. The first editions of this Bible were printed under the same guidance and in the same manner as were the Shakespeare plays, and the ornaments for the various pages were drawn in pen and ink and on wood by artists engaged by Bacon who worked under his supervision. Everyone of the ornaments concealed some Rosicrucian emblem and occasionally a Masonic emblem or some initials that would reveal Bacon’s name or the name of the Rosicrucians. Such ornaments were put not only in the Christian Bible that Bacon had rewritten but in the Shakespeare plays, and in some of Bacon’s own books, and a few other books that were typically Rosicrucinan in spirit.”– Dr. H Spencer Lewis Imperator of the Rosicrucian Order during the 1920-30’s, from the Rosicrucian Digest, April 1930

“The first edition of the King James Bible, which was edited by Francis Bacon and prepared under Masonic supervision, bears more Mason’s marks than the Cathedral of Strasburg.”-Manly P. Hall, from a lecture Rosicrucian and Masonic Origins 1929

“Bacon edited the Authorised Version of the Bible printed in 1611. Dr. Lancelot Andrewes, Bishop of Winchester, one of the chief translators, was Bacon’s close friend. The MSS are missing. That Bacon revised the manuscripts before publication is certain. Neither Bilston nor Miles, to whom the MSS were entrusted for final revision, could have given the world such a literary masterpiece. We have their writings. They are mediocre, barren of style, lacking the creative touch.” -Alfred Dodd, Francis Bacon’s Life-Story 1986

Bacon did meet with Masons & Rosicrucians: 

“On 22 January 1621, in honour of Sir Francis Bacon's sixtieth birthday, a select group of men assembled in the large banquet hall in York House without fanfare for what has been described as a Masonic banquet.^[6] This banquet was to pay tribute to Sir Francis Bacon. Only those of the Rosicrosse (Rosicrucians) and the Masons who were already aware of Bacon's leadership role were invited.” -Alfred Dodd, Francis Bacon's Personal Life Story', Volume 2 - The Age of James, England: Rider & Co., 1949, 1986. pages 157 - 158, 425, 502 - 503, 518 - 532, provided by Wikipedia

Edited August 2, 2023 by Solus Christus

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Solus Christus said:

I have read editor of The KJV was Sir Francis Bacon, was a Free Mason

I can't find anything on the internet that claims Bacon was a Mason. What was your source? Thanks!

[Solus Christus]

45 minutes ago, WordSword said:

I can't find anything on the internet that claims Bacon was a Mason. What was your source? Thanks!

https://sirbacon.org/francis-bacon-and-the-kjv-bible/
 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occult_theories_about_Francis_Bacon

 

https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/public/gdcmassbookdig/francisbaconhiss00pot/francisbaconhiss00pot.pdf

Edited August 3, 2023 by Solus Christus

[Guest]

12 hours ago, Solus Christus said:

https://sirbacon.org/francis-bacon-and-the-kjv-bible/
 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occult_theories_about_Francis_Bacon

 

https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/public/gdcmassbookdig/francisbaconhiss00pot/francisbaconhiss00pot.pdf

Not suspecting you of anything, but I'm not sure enough concerning this issue. There's no direct evidence of the claims made. 

 

I don't know why this is said, because it was just the way of the Elizabethan English (unless I'm misunderstanding it). There appears to be more conspiracy and suspicion about this than actual truth.

The Bible which all of us read and admire from a literary point of view because of it’s peculiar and beautiful English was written in that form by Bacon who invented and perfected that style of English expression.

[Guest]

It’s my understanding that the word “perfect” concerning a translation is mostly in reference to being complete, entire, and plenary. Thus, only translations derived from that majority of extant manuscripts contain all of Word of God (Mat 4:4)! Studying a translation which has much less manuscript evidence cannot affect one’s salvation; but it will affect one’s spiritual growth in the Lord Jesus (Eph 5:14).

[Solus Christus]

2 hours ago, WordSword said:

Not suspecting you of anything, but I'm not sure enough concerning this issue. There's no direct evidence of the claims made. 

 

I don't know why this is said, because it was just the way of the Elizabethan English (unless I'm misunderstanding it). There appears to be more conspiracy and suspicion about this than actual truth.

The Bible which all of us read and admire from a literary point of view because of it’s peculiar and beautiful English was written in that form by Bacon who invented and perfected that style of English expression.

It refers to the prose, that the way the KIV reads is similar to Bacon’s other works and style. It’s not disputing The God Inspired Nature of Scripture (2 Timothy 3:16).