IT’S BIBLICAL !!!👀🙏
(media.greatawakening.win)
Comments (56)
sorted by:
Praying that those who haven't already will pick up their bibles. Lots of fascination to be had, tons of relevance, not to mention the peace you can feel just by reading and trying to understand the Word.
Yes. The KJ or older. To many scriptures left out of the new ones.
Way more manuscripts have been discovered since the KJV version was written. More recent translations benefit from those new Manuscripts. Therefore they're more accurate. But we're splitting hairs here. The NKJV is sufficient, too. Easier to read than the KJV. NIV is even easier to read than that without losing textual accuracy.
Bottom line, just get a Bible and read it.
NIV waters down doctrine.
Cite the doctrine it waters down.
Read Acts 8:37 in your NIV Bible.
Anything footnoted will eventually be removed.
There are more examples like this, but they have absolutely no affect on any doctrine. The better translations will leave the footnote included.
There are two versions of the Bible in the world today, and hundreds of translations.
You have your choice of -
A: Masoretic OT (Hebrew) and Textus Receptus NT (Koine Greek)
(King James, YLT, Geneva, and others)
or
B: The Greek manuscripts preserved by the Roman Catholic Church edited 13 or more times in some places and written in Classical Greek - (Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus, and Codex Alexandrinus).
All the "modern" Bibles are based on the latter, because they are the "oldest" manuscripts.
And the verses which have been changed absolutely have an effect on doctrine.
Do you notice any differences in Hosea 11:12?
What about Matthew 20:16? Any idea why the part about "for many be called, but few chosen" is lopped off in the NIV?
Axiom Ethiopia has their own Bible as well which is completely unedited by the Catholic Church and includes the 17 books (the Apocrypha) removed by the 2nd Council of Nicaea in 787AD. Their Bibles go all the way back supposedly before the 1st hand written Constantine Bibles. This means they are in their original form from scrolls, compared to Constantine and the 1st Council of Nicaea’s manipulation/editing of the Biblical texts. Of course the Catholic Church never would accept them as true, but historically, the Queen of Sheba played a big part in the Old Testament as we all know. And Ethiopia was never enslaved or library/literacy inquisition cleansed like most other post-established Roman Catholic Church era countries.
Is this Axiom Ethiopia Bible available?
The Manuscripts listed in option B are, indeed, older than the Manuscripts mentioned in option A.
The texts in question that have been omitted (very few and none affecting any major doctrine) in option B are simply not found in the older manuscripts. What's your defense to the charge that those verses in question were added by the scribes in Option A? Therefore the scribes in option B are simply reflecting what the older manuscripts recorded more accurately?
Let me ask this question in a more straightforward way:
How do you know that the verses you cite weren't added to the translation you prefer?
Fundamentally, there are only two streams of Bibles. The first stream, which carried the Received Text (Textus Receptus) in Hebrew and Greek, precious manuscripts were preserved by such as the church in Pella in Palestine where Christians fled, when in 70 A.D. the Romans destroyed Jerusalem, by the Syrian Church of Antioch which produced eminent scholarship; by the Italic Church in northern Italy; And also, at the same time, by the Gallic Church in southern France and by the Celtic Church in Great Britain; by the pre-Waldensian, the Waldensian and the churches of the Reformation.
These manuscripts are all in agreement and are the vast majority of copies in existence, by far.
So vast is this majority that even the enemies of the Received Text admit that 95% of all Greek manuscripts are of this class.
I don't trust the Vatican whatsoever, especially since they kept those manuscripts in hiding until after the Protestant Reformation began. Pretty simple.
u/#q191
It's your choice as to which Bible you choose, but it's simply a fact there are really only 2 Bibles in existence.
P.S. If the verses were added to the Received Text, are you now arguing the complete opposite, that these changes absolutely have an effect on doctrine?
Just because more manuscripts have been found (minus some important scripture, including Jesus own words) does not mean they are more accurate.
I’ll stick to the older versions. You do you.
It is probably wise to have access to at least two or three of the major translations KJV (King James Version), NIV (New International Version), NAS (New American Standard), NKJV (New King James Version), ESV (English Standard Version), NLT (New Living Translation), CSB (Christian Standard Bible), for comparison’s sake.
If a verse or passage in one translation is a little confusing, it can be helpful to compare it side-by-side with another version.
It is difficult to say which translation is the "best." "Best" would be determined by a combination of the translation method personally considered best and your interpretation of the textual data underlying your translation. For example, the KJV and NAS attempted to take the underlying Hebrew and Greek words and translate them into the closest corresponding English words as possible (word for word), while the NIV and NLT attempted to take the original thought that was being presented in Greek and Hebrew and then express that thought in English (thought for thought).
Many of the other translations attempt to "meet in the middle" between those two methods. Paraphrases such as The Message or The Living Bible can be used to gain a different perspective on the meaning of a verse, but they should not be used as a primary Bible translation.
YouVersion is a free app that includes all major Bible translations, as well as the ability to compare versions side by side. It also includes audio versions for those times when you want to listen vs. read the Word.
Excellent point
Agreed. But to think that there have not been publishers/translators who are trying to (slowly) subvert the Word is naive (as I’m sure you are aware). Did a deep dive on this years ago…some shady stuff.
A couple years ago, I bought a New Testament translation called The Pure Word. The claim is “It’s the world’s first and only hermeneutic-based monadic Greek to English translation….the most literal/accurate version…an accurate single definitive meaning as understood by the Greek during the first century.”
I’ve only done some light skimming in it, so we’ll see. (And since you sound like a scholar, thot you might be interested.). I wouldn’t recommend it to anyone new to scripture tho.
Anyhoo, off to work. Have a great day.
Fully agree, my friend.
May your workday go quickly!
Yes, you also. Just replied with missing scripture (to one of ur other comments).
Don’t curse me…lol.
Blessings…
I'm not saying the manuscripts themselves are accurate - there are [minor] discrepancies between manuscripts to be sure. But having more manuscripts at hand during translation makes the translation more accurate. But "accuracy" is a slippery word. You have thought for thought translations and word for word translations. Each translation has it's own strengths and weaknesses.
As far as READABILITY is concerned, NIV leads the pack, but not by much.
English Standard Version (ESV) is a good translation too.
Left out and altered meaning with bad translation of words...
NASB is my go to
True enough, though I feel they serve some purpose, for getting a point across in a simpler manner
Do you know why they're left out?
Amen!
Personally, these are all essential to understanding doctrine correctly. I don’t care if some new bibles have made these a footnote. Some of these are Jesus’ own words.
Missing in NLT and ESV
Mathew 17:21 “However, this kind (demons) does not go out except by prayer and fasting.”
Mathew 18:11 “For the Son of Man has come to save that which was lost.”
Mathew 23:14 “Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you devour widows’ houses and for pretense make long prayers. Therefore you will receive greater condemnation. (Jesus speaking)
Mark 7:16 “If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear.” (Jesus speaking about defilement)
Also…
Mark 9:44, 9:46 (Jesus talking about hell)
Mark 11:26 (Jesus talking about forgiving others)
Mark 15:28. (Proving scripture was fulfilled re: Jesus’ death)
None of these verses, if removed, have any effect on any major doctrine (Divinity of Christ, Death/Burial/Resurrection of Christ, Authority of the Scriptures. etc...) .
Now, lets consider the only 4 options regarding examples like you list.
1) These verses are original and one or more scribes mistakenly omitted it.
2) These verses are original and one or more scribes intentionally deleted it.
3) These verses are not original and one or more scribes mistakenly added it.
4) These verses are not original and one or more scribes intentionally added it.
Which one do you choose and why?
Evening!
I think (as I’ve stated before) all is essential to doctrine. And that there is (and has been) some shady stuff going on with translations.
Yes, essential doctrine is there. But seems a slippery slope to me.
2Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,
So I have to wonder why they would edit Jesus’ words.
My .02
2 Kings 9:30-37 King James Version
30 And when Jehu was come to Jezreel, Jezebel heard of it; and she painted her face, and tired her head, and looked out at a window.
31 And as Jehu entered in at the gate, she said, Had Zimri peace, who slew his master?
32 And he lifted up his face to the window, and said, Who is on my side? who? And there looked out to him two or three eunuchs.
33 And he said, Throw her down. So they threw her down: and some of her blood was sprinkled on the wall, and on the horses: and he trode her under foot.
34 And when he was come in, he did eat and drink, and said, Go, see now this cursed woman, and bury her: for she is a king's daughter.
35 And they went to bury her: but they found no more of her than the skull, and the feet, and the palms of her hands.
36 Wherefore they came again, and told him. And he said, This is the word of the Lord, which he spake by his servant Elijah the Tishbite, saying, In the portion of Jezreel shall dogs eat the flesh of Jezebel:
2 Kings 10:31 But Jehu took no heed to walk in the law of the Lord God of Israel with all his heart: for he departed not from the sins of Jeroboam, which made Israel to sin.
Great parallel.
Who is Jehu?
He was an evil king of Israel that many ignorant Christians prophesy about/identify with because he destroyed Ahab and Jezebel’s dynasty in an overly zealous and bloody manner…
… but in the end he led God’s people to more idol worship and God destroyed him and his dynasty too.
Jehu (Hebrew: יֵהוּא, romanized: Yēhūʾ, meaning "Yahu is He"; Akkadian: 𒅀𒌑𒀀 Ya'úa [ia-ú-a]; Latin: Iehu) was the tenth king of the northern Kingdom of Israel since Jeroboam I, noted for exterminating the house of Ahab. He was the son of Jehoshaphat,[1] grandson of Nimshi, and possibly great-grandson of Omri,[2] although the latter notion is not supported by the biblical text. His reign lasted for 28 years.
https://www.gotquestions.org/King-Jehu.html
With the title queen, I doubt she did her own dishes. I’m sure She had the people do it for her.
Jezebel was Queen of the northern kingdom of Israel. Valley of the son of Hinnom is in the southern kingdom of Judah and Moloch worship peaked in Judah under King Manasseh after the northern Kingdom had already been wiped out.
It’s all pretty clear in the books of Kings and Chronicles.
Ahab, her husband was the king of Israel. When Jezebel (princess of Tyre) married Ahab she became queen of Israel. Their capital was Samaria, not Tyre. That’s how monarchies work.
Your point is kinda like saying Prince Phillip’s father was the prince of Greece. So what? He still married Queen Elizabeth II. He was still the Duke of Edinburgh. He was still part of the British monarch and his son is still King of Britain.
As for your doubt regarding the historical accuracy of the scriptural narrative… we’ll have to agree to disagree. I am of the mind that all Scripture is God-breathed and God is Truth. I place very little stock in anti-Theist revisionist history.
Thanks for your reply and all the best.
No one revised the Dead Sea Scrolls.
But keep trusting in your University educated historians and Smithsonian gatekept narrative if you’d like. They are the “experts” after all.
I’ll stick to the most ancient and reliable manuscripts thanks.
I trust the traditional scribal transmission method from Moses to Ezra (and the men of the Great Assembly; Daniel, Mordechai, etc.) to DSS. And which subsequently has remained unchanged from DSS to Masoretes to our time. Along with all the extra-biblical manuscripts supporting the scribal transmission’s fidelity and accuracy.
Usually when anti-theist scholars have issues with Scripture it is moreso over the denial of the metaphysical nature of its truth rather than its historical narrative. In truth, throughout history the Bible has debunked archaeologists many times (see, Nineveh for ex.).
For me the issue is trusting a few modern revisionist university trained Egyptologists vs. millennia of meticulous scribal tradition.
But as a mentioned already, we’ll have to agree to disagree since I believe God is able to preserve His messages. Ultimately adherence to the ancient scriptural prophetic narrative comes down to faith vs. adherence to the archaeological (scientific) narrative which, by definition, requires skepticism.
Also, since you mentioned it a couple times already - don’t discount the effect that negative emotions are having on your reasoning process. A resentment toward a corrupt political religious system having been forced upon you will undoubtedly bias you toward any pursuit of truth. What you have done is akin to someone throwing away, say the Constitution since America has done such a crappy job adhering to it. If I was to judge the Constitution solely by America’s citizenry and its political parties I would be doing myself a disservice.
KJV and Apocrypha for me!
Then Jezabel got trampled by horses and eaten by dogs...
Horses are Biblical symbols of Authority and Dogs are Biblical symbols of Friends.
I wonder is Jezebel will be found guilty in courts and sold out by her friends?
We have been here before