Revival Sermons

Studies in the Word => Difficult Bible Texts => Topic started by: newbie on March 22, 2011, 08:31:43 AM

Title: the Word of God changed
Post by: newbie on March 22, 2011, 08:31:43 AM
To me this is just incredible.

1.  Act 8:37  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. KJV

    Act 8:37  (missing)  NIV     a most important verse about believing in the Son of God... NIV takes Jesus out of the equation completely.

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

     Matt 18:11 (missing) NIV   a most important verse about the mission of the Son of man to save the lost.

3.  Mat 18:21  Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times?
Mat 18:22  Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven. KJV

Matt 18:21 Then Peter came to Jesus and asked, "Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother when he sins against me? Up to seven times?" 22 Jesus answered, "I tell you, not seven times, but seventy-seven times. NIV

This is most astounding.  Matt. 18:22 says that we are to forgive our brother 490 times.  That is how many years that God forgave and stayed with Israel...490 years.  Then, at the stoning of Stephen Jesus stood up and probation had closed for the nation of Israel... 490 years.

Now if you read the NIV it says 77 times which has no meaning for prophecy at all.

The meaning of the 490 years means that at the close of probation for the world, we no longer forgive our brothers that are unjust or unrighteous as their fate now is sealed.

Incredible as it seems, Satan is still at work behind the scenes trying to confuse and to keep man from know the ONE that could save him from eternal death.

God Bless you as you read and contemplate these things.
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: Larry Lyons on March 22, 2011, 10:05:04 AM
Thanks for posting that Newbie. It appears that in some, or even most of the new translations there appears to be a lot of verses that reduce the work of Christ or even eliminate him from a passage.

(7) For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one. 1John 5:7 KJV

(7) And it is the Spirit who bears witness, because the Spirit is the truth. 1John 5:7 NASB.

In this verse the Father and the Son are missing from the New American Standard Bible. The Triune God head and the influence of the three witnesses has been removed. Verse 7 is an allusion to Mosaic law, in which the testimony of three witnesses was required in order to establish truth in certain legal proceedings.
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: newbie on March 22, 2011, 07:08:50 PM
this is what the bible says about those that change things:

Rev. 22: 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.


Deut. 12:32 What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.

Gal 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

Prov. 30:5,6 Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. 6  Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: Raven on March 23, 2011, 03:33:16 AM
Newbie, have you watched "The Battle of the Bibles" by Walter Veith?  He covers this problem very well in that series of lectures.  He even gathers a group of people up on the platform and asks them to look up and read portions of Scripture.  Those with the NIV ("Non-Inspired Version," according to a friend of mine) are rather perplexed to find that they can't find most of the verses; or maybe even all of the verses; I can't remember.  Anyway, it is well worth watching.
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: newbie on March 23, 2011, 12:24:39 PM
Newbie, have you watched "The Battle of the Bibles" by Walter Veith?  He covers this problem very well in that series of lectures.  He even gathers a group of people up on the platform and asks them to look up and read portions of Scripture.  Those with the NIV ("Non-Inspired Version," according to a friend of mine) are rather perplexed to find that they can't find most of the verses; or maybe even all of the verses; I can't remember.  Anyway, it is well worth watching.
Thanks for that Raven....  I like it.
I have not watched all of walter's stuff yet... just trying to keep up with the new stuff.  I will go back and watch it.... 
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: Soli Deo Gloria on March 23, 2011, 07:14:59 PM
Thanks for posting that Newbie. It appears that in some, or even most of the new translations there appears to be a lot of verses that reduce the work of Christ or even eliminate him from a passage.

(7) For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one. 1John 5:7 KJV

(7) And it is the Spirit who bears witness, because the Spirit is the truth. 1John 5:7 NASB.

In this verse the Father and the Son are missing from the New American Standard Bible. The Triune God head and the influence of the three witnesses has been removed. Verse 7 is an allusion to Mosaic law, in which the testimony of three witnesses was required in order to establish truth in certain legal proceedings.

Larry,
There is excellent scholarship that showed that the KJV on 1John 5:7 was not part of the original manuscript. It is a great text to help prove the Trinity, but it was a scribe who put that in. This is not liberal revisionism but honest scholarship. One can prove the Trinity doctrine from the NIV.

I don't buy the conspiracy theories that the NIV was somehow manipulated by Satan.

THe NIV is not the best translation, however. I am partial to the English Standard Version, as it has shown to be faithful to the original languages, and is easy to read.

However, I love good old King James as well.

But there has been excellent conservative scholars showing the errors in the KJV as well. Some of this excellent scholarship was done by Raymond Cottrell, the late editor of the SDA Bible commentary and other SDA scholars . There is no perfect translation.

The evangelical essential truth is that the Bible is inerrant in the original manuscripts. All translations are subject to human errors. However, I found Christ through studying the NIV for many years.

Stan
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: Soli Deo Gloria on March 23, 2011, 07:19:21 PM
Here is an article from Tammy Roesch and her husband regarding the KJV only problem. I hesitate to post this since there are only 2 articles on her website I agree with, and we had nothing in common when she used to post here, but they make valid points:

http://www.thenarrowwayministries.org/Page/The-King-James-ONLY-Fallacy/100/

Stan
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: Larry Lyons on March 23, 2011, 11:33:30 PM
Here is an article from Tammy Roesch and her husband regarding the KJV only problem. I hesitate to post this since there are only 2 articles on her website I agree with, and we had nothing in common when she used to post here, but they make valid points:

http://www.thenarrowwayministries.org/Page/The-King-James-ONLY-Fallacy/100/

Stan
Stan, no doubt the scholarship that you mention in your previous post uses the more recently discovered older manuscripts to make the claim that the KJV is incorrect. But it is not just a verse here and there that is the problem. It is the accumulation of the weight of evidence throughout the new translations, including the NASB which is not the worst of them. Most oif them use older manuscripts such as the one from the monastary on mt Sinai that had been discarded by the monks. And also from Alexandria. Older manuscripts do not necessarily equal better and more accurate manuscripts.
 In my opinion, Alan Roesch's argument is shallow. He does not really speak to what the problem really is with the translations. Also, his use of Ellen White is irrelevant since she used the Revised Version rarely, and alternate translations were not an issue in her day since few existed.

Raven is right. Walter Veith has 2 extensive lectures on the subject that document some of the problems with the various new translations and the manuscriptis that were used to produce them.
 He even has quotes by Hort and Wescott, two of the men on the committee that prepared the Greek text that is apparantly still in use by committees preparing new translations. They were both Church of England priests and heavily involved in the occult world and spiritualism, especially Wescott. In letters to one another, which one of their sons published after their death, they agreed that their goal was to make subtle changes that would "correct" Chirstian theology.

Also there is the book "New Age Bible Versions" by Gail Riplinger, which very extensively documents the New Age  bias in the new translations. She makes extensive comparisons of renderings of the new translations with the KJV, and explains in detail the problematic origins of the "recently discovered" older manuscripts.

Personally, I have several different translations. Obviously people have been brought to the Lord using other translations. I don't make it a big issue, but for serious study, I think  it is safest to use the KJV.


Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: Soli Deo Gloria on March 24, 2011, 12:07:28 AM
Raven is right. Walter Veith has 2 extensive lectures on the subject that document some of the problems with the various new translations and the manuscriptis that were used to produce them.
 He even has quotes by Hort and Wescott, two of the men on the committee that prepared the Greek text that is apparantly still in use by committees preparing new translations. They were both Church of England priests and heavily involved in the occult world and spiritualism, especially Wescott. In letters to one another, which one of their sons published after their death, they agreed that their goal was to make subtle changes that would "correct" Chirstian theology.

Also there is the book "New Age Bible Versions" by Gail Riplinger, which very extensively documents the New Age  bias in the new translations. She makes extensive comparisons of renderings of the new translations with the KJV, and explains in detail the problematic origins of the "recently discovered" older manuscripts.



Larry, here is an article that should be read to get the other side of the argument, and read about the methods that Gail Riplinger uses:

http://bible.org/article/why-respond-gail-riplinger

Here is an excerpt from the above article written by James R. White, a very conservative Biblical scholar:

It is important to emphasize right from the start that I have no personal animosity toward Mrs. Gail Riplinger. I have only spoken with the lady by phone while on KRDS radio in Phoenix in late 1993. Other than sending her a letter and some materials from our ministry, this is the extent of my personal contact with her. I am sure Mrs. Riplinger believes she is doing the right thing in writing NABV. She most probably believes everything she says to be absolutely true. She may well be sincere in her desire to warn the Church about false beliefs. But, sadly, she is also sincerely, and almost completely, wrong.

NABV has disturbed the peace of many churches in the United States and abroad. The allegations the book makes against Christian men of many denominational backgrounds are serious indeed. The back of the book contains this paragraph from Gail Riplinger:

"Each page opens a door exposing new version editors--in agreement with Luciferians, occultists, and New Age philosophy--in mental institutions, seance parlors, prison cells, and court rooms for heresy trials--and most shocking of all--denying that salvation is through faith in Jesus Christ. Five have lost their ability to speak."

The following information demonstrates beyond question that Mrs. Riplinger
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: newbie on March 24, 2011, 07:38:03 AM
Larry,
There is excellent scholarship that showed that the KJV on 1John 5:7 was not part of the original manuscript. It is a great text to help prove the Trinity, but it was a scribe who put that in. This is not liberal revisionism but honest scholarship. One can prove the Trinity doctrine from the NIV.


Stan,
1 John 5:7 is there and it should be there.  When we start taking things out of the bible and try to prove they are in error then soon we will have nothing left.  God has protected His Word and we must bring our understanding into line with His.
God Bless
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: newbie on March 24, 2011, 07:41:24 AM
Personally, I have several different translations. Obviously people have been brought to the Lord using other translations. I don't make it a big issue, but for serious study, I think  it is safest to use the KJV.
I do too.  I want to know what the enemy of souls has changed so I can see what is important in the original.  What is being taken out and phrased out must be very important!!
God Bless
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: Larry Lyons on March 24, 2011, 11:04:09 AM
Larry, here is an article that should be read to get the other side of the argument, and read about the methods that Gail Riplinger uses:

http://bible.org/article/why-respond-gail-riplinger

Here is an excerpt from the above article written by James R. White, a very conservative Biblical scholar:

It is important to emphasize right from the start that I have no personal animosity toward Mrs. Gail Riplinger. I have only spoken with the lady by phone while on KRDS radio in Phoenix in late 1993. Other than sending her a letter and some materials from our ministry, this is the extent of my personal contact with her. I am sure Mrs. Riplinger believes she is doing the right thing in writing NABV. She most probably believes everything she says to be absolutely true. She may well be sincere in her desire to warn the Church about false beliefs. But, sadly, she is also sincerely, and almost completely, wrong.

NABV has disturbed the peace of many churches in the United States and abroad. The allegations the book makes against Christian men of many denominational backgrounds are serious indeed. The back of the book contains this paragraph from Gail Riplinger:

"Each page opens a door exposing new version editors--in agreement with Luciferians, occultists, and New Age philosophy--in mental institutions, seance parlors, prison cells, and court rooms for heresy trials--and most shocking of all--denying that salvation is through faith in Jesus Christ. Five have lost their ability to speak."

The following information demonstrates beyond question that Mrs. Riplinger
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: newbie on March 24, 2011, 11:15:33 AM
wasn't it in the dead sea scrolls where the book of Isaiah matched exactly the words in the KJV bible...  ?? :-o
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: Soli Deo Gloria on March 24, 2011, 11:25:40 AM
It is good to have other points of view available, but regardless of flaws that may be in Riplinger's book, (and she is not the only critic of the new translations)the real problem lies in the more recently discovered older manuscripts that were used to prepare the Greek text on which the new translations were based. There are many problem verses in the new translations that tend to erode very basic Christian doctrine.  Based on Dr. Veith's documentation, Westcott was indeed a spiritualist. Riplinger is not the only one who makes that claim.


Larry,
Did you go on to read the points that James White makes?

How could Riplinger  be given any credibility at all, when it is proven beyond a doubt that she dishonestly smeared the characters of many good men? White has the documentation in writing of hundreds of places in her 700 page book that totally misquotes people and twists what they are saying.

I am surprised that anyone would give this woman the time of day. But there are those who dwell on conspiracy theories, and Riplinger feeds the thirst for this and plays on the gullibility of people who won't check out the facts.

Here is the link again, and I want to quote more from the article:

http://bible.org/article/why-respond-gail-riplinger

The issues raised by Gail Riplinger are very important, if only for the fact that in this book professing Christian men who lived godly lives are attacked mercilessly and are associated with men who were anything but godly or concerned about Christian truth. Orthodox Christian theologians are indiscriminately associated with heretics without any thought as to the consistency of such an action. Since we have in this book serious allegations of downright Satanic actions on the part of Christian leaders, I feel Mrs. Riplinger should be held to the highest standards of scholarly acumen and accuracy.

Gail Riplinger claims that her book
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: Soli Deo Gloria on March 24, 2011, 11:34:48 AM
White goes on:

I note in passing that this book centers on the two most popular conservative Bible translations, the New American Standard Bible and the New International Version. Very little is said about blatantly liberal translations such as the New Revised Standard Version or the New English Bible, most probably because these translations have had little impact upon the conservative Christian community, comparatively speaking. I would join Gail in critiquing these translations, not as part of some New Age conspiracy, but as less than accurate translations of the Bible. But Gail barely mentions these versions; her target is plainly the NIV and the NASB.


 And worst of all, Gail Riplinger attacks the memories and characters of good men of God, such as Edwin Palmer, without once differentiating between the beliefs and actions of such men and the likes of New Age wackos and Satanists. She misrepresents their writings and words over and over and over again. Accurate representation of others is one thing that is utterly lacking in New Age Bible Versions.

Those are some pretty harsh words, but the documentation of these statements is easily found. All one has to do is take Gail Riplinger
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: Soli Deo Gloria on March 24, 2011, 01:58:28 PM
I have now watched 2 different videos by Walter Veith on line.

He has a very charming demeanor with his South African accent. He is a good speaker. However, I did not appreciate the way he mocked the NIV at times in an irreverent manner. It is still a Bible that has a track record of leading many people to know Christ.

But I just ran across a very scholarly paper on this topic from the Biblical Research Institute and an official paper from the General Conference website which puts Veith's views on this in deep question:

http://biblicalresearch.gc.adventist.org/documents/Textus%20Receptus%20and%20Modern%20Bible%20Translations.pdf

Here is an excerpt from this excellent paper by Johannes Kovar

Among Adventists the question of the reliability of Bible translations and especially the question which Bible
translation to choose have come up again. In his lectures Walter Veith, a zoologist, claims that the so-called Textus
Receptus must be chosen on which the King James Version (KJV) and several translations into other modern languages
are based. He arrives at this position partly because of certain conspiracy theories, which he espouses, rather than on
the basis of a study of the original Greek manuscripts.
This has caused some stir and irritation among church members
and pastors in various countries. The question is whether it is better for Bible translations to rely on the Textus
Receptus, which is supported by the majority of manuscripts, or to favor the scientific text (Nestle-Aland). Most
modern Bibles are based upon the latter. 

Today we have at our disposal a wealth of manuscripts of different ages and of varying quality (about 5,400 for the
NT).1 The autographs are all lost; thus, we must reconstruct the original wording as best as we can, using the
manuscripts that are available to us. The publishers of the scientific text of the NT produced an eclectic text, a text not
found in one manuscript only. Deviations from this text are carefully listed in the text-critical apparatus.
For the NT we are aware of two main text types: (1) The Alexandrian text (Egypt) whose manuscripts date back to
the 2nd century A.D. It is clearly the closest that we can come to the lost originals, and it forms the basis for modern
scientific editions. (2) The Byzantine text (Constantinople). As far as we know, this text came into existence in the 4th /
5th century A.D. and became the basis of the later Textus Receptus and the KJV. The Byzantine type of text is found in
the majority of manuscripts that have been preserved (about 80% of all of the extant manuscripts).2 Beginning in the 6th
/ 7th century it was slowly accepted by Greek Christianity.


-----------------------

Kovar goes on to say this:

The differences between Bible translations based on the Textus Receptus and those following the eclectic text are
not grave. Only very few passages are of greater significance. One estimates that 98% of the text of the NT reveals no
appreciable variations. Champions of the Textus Receptus have often taken the differences too seriously.

----------------------

It is refreshing to read a reliable factual analysis, rather than things that are sensational.

Stan
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: Larry Lyons on March 24, 2011, 02:56:26 PM
Stan, I did read some of White's article. It appears that the all of the arguments supporting the NIV and other versions are based on the  assumption that the Alexandrian manuscripts and the other older ones are better because they are older. If I recall correctly, Alexandria was the seat of gnosticism, not exactly an environment that could be trusted to preserve the truth. That older is necessarily better is not even logical and cannot be proven to be the case. They were not "original" manuscripts they were copies of copies. The proof is in comparing the key texts that are in question in the new versions with the KJV. The tendency will either be towards supporting the deity of Christ and His work of atonement or it will diminish it.

Also, the term "conspiracy theory" is used by people to try to intimidate and silence truth that makes them uncomfortable in the same way that the word "pharisee" is used to try to intimidate and silence truth. It is interesting to me that most Christians, including Seventh-day Adventists will readily agree when the statement is made that Satan is behind the evil and corruption in the wowrld. They will also readily agree when it is pointed out that Satan uses organizations and individuals to carry out his purposes. However when someone like Walter Veith presents specific documented information as to how this is being done and who is doing it, these same folks will scream "Conspiracy Theory." Veith makes it a point to use published statements that can be checked to back up his statements.
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: Ed Sutton on March 24, 2011, 03:44:33 PM
In the early 1960's Vatican II was bringing out it's own Bible Version to bring the non Catholic Churches back to mother Rome.  That version was and is the NIV a product of the institution EGW calls " mystery of Iniquity"

2nd Thessalonians 2:
6  And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time.
7  For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.
8  And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:
9  Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,
10  And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
11  And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
12  That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

"mystery of iniquity" =  64  SOP  hits

Quote
 As Satan saw that he had failed to crush out the truth by persecution, he again resorted to the same plan of compromise which had led to the great apostasy and the formation of the church of Rome. He induced Christians to ally themselves, not now with pagans,but with those who, by their worship of the god of this world, as truly proved themselves idolaters. {SR 354.2}
     Satan could no longer keep the Bible from the people; it had been placed within the reach of all. But he led thousands to accept false interpretations and unsound theories, without searching the Scriptures to learn the truth for themselves. He had corrupted the doctrines of the Bible, and traditions which were to ruin millions were taking deep root. The church was upholding and defending these traditions, instead of contending for the faith once delivered to the saints. And while wholly unconscious of their condition and their peril, the church and the world were rapidly approaching the most solemn and momentous period of earth's history--the period of the revelation of the Son of man. {SR 355.1}  

Could it be that now much closer to the Second Coming, Satan has ramped up his attack by his flood of variant translations, paraphrases, supposed Bible's that are not translations at all - it would seem logical if using profiling of Satan's wiles and ways through history.  

Can and does God over rule and enlighten darkened minds / hearts despite that - sure.       If someone has an intrest in God and there is a chance it is an honest hearted interest, following Jesus method is always safest.  

Isaiah 42:3  A bruised reed shall he not break, and the smoking flax shall he not quench: he shall bring forth judgment unto truth.

Matthew 12:20  A bruised reed shall he not break, and smoking flax shall he not quench, till he send forth judgment unto victory.

John 16:12  I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.

Romans 14:21  It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.

1 Corinthians 8:11  And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died?

Lord give me grace and self restraint and self control to allow You to win the war and not just be intent upon my winning the skirmish.    

Help me intrest them in knowing You more and more and they will in time, trade their smoky kerosene lamp for a brighter search light.   Help me bring forth the treasures from MY Bible till they want to do likewise and ask - "why can't I find that in mine?"
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: newbie on March 24, 2011, 03:59:00 PM
Hi Stan,

You can find tons of info. on the web to support such things but how can you deny the truth that serious omissions have taken place to change the understanding of the bible itself.  How can that edify?  And, they do not even try to make up the number but you will notice that the numbering is just gone.

I have no doubt and have said before that any bible can bring on to Christ but to do deep studies and memorization, one should eventually graduate to the KJV.

We are told that the bible will used to judge us, those immortal words.  Which one do you think heaven will use?
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: Soli Deo Gloria on March 24, 2011, 04:48:09 PM
Stan, I did read some of White's article. It appears that the all of the arguments supporting the NIV and other versions are based on the  assumption that the Alexandrian manuscripts and the other older ones are better because they are older. If I recall correctly, Alexandria was the seat of gnosticism, not exactly an environment that could be trusted to preserve the truth. That older is necessarily better is not even logical and cannot be proven to be the case. They were not "original" manuscripts they were copies of copies. The proof is in comparing the key texts that are in question in the new versions with the KJV. The tendency will either be towards supporting the deity of Christ and His work of atonement or it will diminish it.

Also, the term "conspiracy theory" is used by people to try to intimidate and silence truth that makes them uncomfortable in the same way that the word "pharisee" is used to try to intimidate and silence truth. It is interesting to me that most Christians, including Seventh-day Adventists will readily agree when the statement is made that Satan is behind the evil and corruption in the wowrld. They will also readily agree when it is pointed out that Satan uses organizations and individuals to carry out his purposes. However when someone like Walter Veith presents specific documented information as to how this is being done and who is doing it, these same folks will scream "Conspiracy Theory." Veith makes it a point to use published statements that can be checked to back up his statements.

Larry,
Did you read the article on the official website of the General Conference posted above and his concerns about what Veith presented?

Top SDA scholars as well as very conservative non SDA scholars all seem to agree that older manuscripts are more reliable.

It just makes sense. It is true of secular literature as well. As time goes on, corruption of the original text is likely to occur.

But the bottom line is that only 2% of the total manuscripts show any significant differences.

Therefore we can praise the Lord for faithfully preserving his perfect inerrant word through imperfect vessels of his grace.

I certainly don't claim to have all the answers.

I still love the KJV, and not only does it have the ring of truth, it sounds very majestic when read.

However, God has also provided for versions of the Bible that are written in simpler language.

The English Standard Version was not an object of criticism by any of the authors mentioned above. It is not only very accurate but readable.

Check it out at

http://www.esvonline.org/Genesis+1/

Stan
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: Soli Deo Gloria on March 24, 2011, 05:03:49 PM
Here is one more quote from the Adventist scholar from the Biblical Research Institute:

http://biblicalresearch.gc.adventist.org/documents/Textus%20Receptus%20and%20Modern%20Bible%20Translations.pdf

The Biblical Research Institute of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists (BRI) published several
articles in the past suggesting not to rely on the KJV only because it is not based on the best manuscripts.

VII.  Summary
The academic world as well as many Adventists favor the scientific Greek text as a basis for modern Bible
translations. Of course, it is possible that in case of new manuscript findings a fresh assessment of one or the other
reading in modern scientific editions has to be made. Nevertheless, the current scientific editions can be trusted, and
supporters of the Textus Receptus should be aware of the weaknesses found in their favored text.


The differences in both text types are minor and, therefore, should not undermine our confidence in the
transmission and the validity of the biblical text. It is neither scientifically legitimate nor pastorally advisable to deny
modern and carefully rendered Bible translation their right to exist.

-------------
Very well said.

There are still many Christians who think that the KJV just magically appeared from heaven, and even say that this is the version by which we will be judged.

Apparently, not even Ellen White believed that.  Here is what the SDA scholar quoted above says about Ellen White's use of translations:

E. G. White quoted from the English Revised Version (ERV) and the American Revised Version (ARV 1901, also
known as the American Standard Version [ASV]), both of which are based on the Westcott-Hort Greek text of the NT.6 
According to her son, W. C. White, she gave her secretary specific instructions to use the version that best reflected her
ideas. In her book The Ministry of Healing (1905), she took ten biblical texts from the ERV, more than fifty from the
ARV and a few texts from other versions.  That proves that she did not limit herself to the KJV.
When she later made important statements about inspiration (1 Selected Messages and the introduction to The Great Controversy), she did not warn against new translations. Evidently she saw in them no threat whatsoever to beliefs and theology.
---------------------------
Stan
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: Ed Sutton on March 24, 2011, 06:10:18 PM
part 1  -  It is understood that all humanly written Bibles are not the Book with the Seven Seals, the Bible written by Father God's Own hand - and kept in Heaven.

Quote
   4 supposed Errors in the King James Bible Texts - explained

"Errors" in the King James Bible ( Copyright
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: Soli Deo Gloria on March 24, 2011, 06:17:34 PM
Ed,
You quoted extensively from a fundamentalist Baptist author above in your last post.

Did you read what the SDA scholar from the official GC website wrote?  And if you did read it, what did you think?

Stan
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: Ed Sutton on March 24, 2011, 06:28:38 PM
Stan not done posting yet.

part 2

continuing quote
 
Quote
3. Many argue that the KJV is in error with it's use of the word "devils" instead of "demons". Again, this is due to an over emphasis on "the Greek" as well as a lack of faith in God's ability to preserve His words in English. While protesting that "daimon" should be translated "demon", many have overlooked a great truth which the Holy Spirit has preserved in the King's English. There is one true "Son of God", but many "sons of God". There is one true "Church", the Bride of Christ, but many local "churches". Likewise, there is one "Devil", but many "devils" under his control.

The word "demon" itself does not necessarily imply an evil spirit. Even Webster's 1828 dictionary states that "the ancients believed that there were good and evil demons...", and New Agers of today believe likewise. Therefore, God led the KJV translators to translate "devils" instead of "demons" because every "daimon" in the Bible IS an evil spirit. The word "devil" makes that clear. Every "devil" in the Bible is under the authority of their father "the Devil".


4. Then we have "contradictions" like Exodus 24:10 and John 1:18. Exodus says the Israelites SAW God, while Jesus said in John that "no man hath seen God at any time". Contradiction, right? No, it's only a matter of rightly dividing the word of truth (which you may not be practicing if II Tim. 2:15 has been altered in your "bible"). God is a Trinity, just like you and I. We're a body, a soul, and a spirit (I Ths. 5:23). The Israelites saw a physical manifestation of God, but not the SOUL of God, just as no one has ever seen your soul.

( Ed
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: Ed Sutton on March 24, 2011, 06:34:10 PM
end of part 2  5k limit

[B.] (redeemed immortal sinless in Heaven) -  see His face - Job 33:26He shall pray unto God, and he will be favourable unto him: and he shall see his face with joy : for he will render unto man his righteousness.

Revelation 22:1-41
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: Ed Sutton on March 24, 2011, 06:47:11 PM
Stan it was the scholars in 31 AD that impeded Jesus's work the most.   I read how they effectively trashed KJV in favor of translations that in my sight,  might in some portions merely stand equal, and in other portions stand as inferior.

I do not trust theologians, I trust Scripture & SOP, human opinions are so much wind that passes away and reality was unchanged by their utterances .  When God speaks reality always conforms to His words or changes if not already conforming because He commands a new thing.

That's the first lesson I learned when Satan invisibly sat on the lower portion of my bed at night while still a warlock, look for absolutes, Satan is only vanquished by superior power, resolve, wisdom.   Only God has, and sends such, theologians have none from them selves to give.

Historical grammatical is the only obedient hermeneutic,  lead by the Holy Ghost is the only path ( the KJV Committee of nearly 50 was ), what God has already explained is the only safe explanations to go from known toward unknown - not even so called scholarly definitions.

Here I stand ...God help me .....for I am a little man....handling things too weighty for me alone.


Quote
   It is Satan's plan to weaken the faith of God's people in the Testimonies. Next follows skepticism in regard to the vital points of our faith, the pillars of our position, then doubt as to the Holy Scriptures, and then the downward march to perdition. When the Testimonies, which were once believed, are doubted and given up, Satan knows the deceived ones will not stop at this; and he redoubles his efforts till he launches them into open rebellion, which becomes incurable and ends in destruction.--4T 211.  {LDE 178.2}

 1.   It is Satan's plan to weaken the faith of God's people in the Testimonies.

2.   Next follows skepticism in regard to the vital points of our faith, the pillars of our position,

3.   then doubt as to the Holy Scriptures, and then the downward march to perdition.

When the Testimonies, which were once believed, are doubted and given up, Satan knows the deceived ones will not stop at this; and he redoubles his efforts till he launches them into open rebellion, which becomes incurable and ends in destruction.--4T 211.  {LDE 178.2}

Where do these scholars stand on everything EGW wrote that God showed her to write as His messenger ?    That defines their position on Scripture to those willing to look at Scripture and fruits .   


Where do these scholars stand on the everlasting gospel and present truth ?    That defines their position on Scripture to those willing to look at Scripture and fruits .   


Where do these scholars stand on everything God preserved in Scripture ?    That defines their position on Scripture to those willing to look at Scripture and fruits .   

I went to the site through the link, God the Holy Ghost is being called a liar by their statements of tree of life being changed to book of life in error. 

Matthew 7:16  Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
Matthew 7:20  Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

Proverbs 30:5  Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.

2 Peter 1:16  For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

19
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: Soli Deo Gloria on March 24, 2011, 07:02:02 PM
Stan it was the scholars in 31 AD that impeded Jesus's work the most.   I read how they effectively trashed KJV in favor of translations that in my sight,  might in some portions merely stand equal, and in other portions stand as inferior.

I do not trust theologians, I trust Scripture & SOP, human opinions are so much wind that passes away and reality was unchanged by their utterances .  When God speaks reality always conforms to His words or changes if not already conforming because He commands a new thing.

That's the first lesson I learned when Satan invisibly sat on the lower portion of my bed at night while still a warlock, look for absolutes, Satan is only vanquished by superior power, resolve, wisdom.   Only God has, and sends such, theologians have none from them selves to give.

Historical grammatical is the only obedient hermeneutic,  lead by the Holy Ghost is the only path ( the KJV Committee of nearly 50 was ), what God has already explained is the only safe explanations to go from known toward unknown - not even so called scholarly definitions.

Here I stand ...God help me .....for I am a little man....handling things too weighty for me alone.

OK Ed.
Yet you quoted extensively from a very fundamentalist Baptist website:

http://www.biblebaptistpublications.org/aboutbiblebaptistchurch.html

Yet I quoted from an official SDA website what Ellen White believed about different translations, and here it is again:

E. G. White quoted from the English Revised Version (ERV) and the American Revised Version (ARV 1901, also
known as the American Standard Version [ASV]), both of which are based on the Westcott-Hort Greek text of the NT.6 
According to her son, W. C. White, she gave her secretary specific instructions to use the version that best reflected her
ideas. In her book The Ministry of Healing (1905), she took ten biblical texts from the ERV, more than fifty from the
ARV and a few texts from other versions.  That proves that she did not limit herself to the KJV.
When she later made important statements about inspiration (1 Selected Messages and the introduction to The Great Controversy), she did not warn against new translations. Evidently she saw in them no threat whatsoever to beliefs and theology.
-------------------------
Ed,
You never answered my question as to whether you even read the article which is not very long from the official GC website.

But maybe the facts he presents won't matter to some, but they are worth considering.

Stan
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: Ed Sutton on March 24, 2011, 07:51:40 PM

secretary = 180 SOP hits, I have just read all 180 and where are the instructions on which Bible version to use,  I have not found any such instructions in that search, please post the references about it, I remember EGW speaking of literary authors and historical references during the preparation of Great Controversy and it's editions, but was not aware of EGW specifying Bible versions to her secretaries.    I think Joe Crews brought out her use of KJV over all was about 95%.



Who were EGW's secretaries ?   Lets start looking it up and find what her directions actually were.

Copying and pasting from folio views.
Quote

C. C. CRISLER

Miss Sara McEnterfer

W. C. White

Emily Campbell, who assisted her both as secretary and as nurse

Mrs. Mabel White Workman; her long-time and faithful secretary

SISTER LUCINDA M. HALL ACTED AS SISTER WHITE'S HOUSEKEEPER, SECRETARY

SISTER ADELIA PATTEN

MARY C. CLOUGH - IN A VISION IT WAS PRESENTED TO SISTER WHITE THAT SHE AND MARY WERE LOOKING AT SOME WONDROUS DEVELOPMENTS IN THE SKY. THEY MEANT MUCH TO SISTER WHITE, BUT TO MARY THEY SEEMED TO MEAN NOTHING; AND THE ANGEL SAID, "SPIRITUAL THINGS ARE SPIRITUALLY DISCERNED," AND THEN INSTRUCTED SISTER WHITE THAT SHE SHOULD NO LONGER EMPLOY HER NIECE AS HER BOOK EDITOR.  {3SM 457.1}


Adelia Van Horn

Marian Davis

The problem lay in the changeable moods, erratic course, and unfaithfulness of Miss Fannie Bolton, the secretary who had replaced Sara McEnterfer at the last minute as the Whites left America; she assisted in preparing Ellen G. White articles for the journals of the church.  {4BIO 237.1}

Minnie Hawkins,  
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: Larry Lyons on March 24, 2011, 08:52:25 PM
Stan, the author of the article from the BRI reveals his hostille bias immediately in the beginning of the article by suggesting Walter Veith arrives at his conclusions via conspiracy theories. That is an ad hominum attack that destroys his credibility. The author is apparantly at Bogenhofen, an Adventist institution in Germany. Walter Vieth was invited to present a series in Germany. The German church leadership did not want to allow him to speak. They finally agreed to a compromise that he would not speak on a certain topic. Veith said "I'll agree on one condition. "The blood is on your heads." The conference men went to the side for a private conversation, returned and agreed. The church leadership in Europe, and especially in Germany is hopelessly liberal and has reportedly been that way for a long time.

Also the BRI are not inspired men. They have their own biases, usually not as blatantly expressed as the author of the artcle. 
Again, the idea that the older manuscripts are necessarily better because they are older makes no sense. The "older manuscripts" are of very dubious origen and value. I do respect theologians and Bible scholars but it appears to me that in this area many of them are on the wrong track.

I have watched literally dozens of Dr. Veith's lectures. I have not discovered any error in what he presents. He does not bash the Adventist church and states that people should not remove themselves from the church when they feel victimized or disagree with others on doctrine. The fact that he gets a lot of resistance from some in church leadership to me is evidence that he is doing God's work. He is on the same page as Ted Wilson and he has said that he is very pleased with the direction Wilson wants to take the church. He has also stated in so many words that, if this was the perfect church with no problems, no corruption, and no internal disagreements, it would not be God's church.  :-) See Revelation 3:14-22.
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: Soli Deo Gloria on March 24, 2011, 09:39:20 PM
Larry,
We will have to agree to disagree. It is very clear that EGW did not insist on one KJV only.

I watched several tapes of Veith. He flatly stated that the NIV is a Jesuit Bible. This has no basis in fact. It is poor scholarship to make that kind of generalization.

And speaking of ad hominum attacks. What about the book by Gail Riplinger you recommended on one post? That book is filled with lies and slander against fine Christian leaders.

But again, we will have to leave it there. That BRI scholar presented honest facts. You did not point to one specific where he could be proven wrong. He just stated that Veith used conspiracy theories. Veith did remind me of Riplinger. They made similar claims.

Stan
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: Larry Lyons on March 24, 2011, 11:29:10 PM
Larry,
We will have to agree to disagree. It is very clear that EGW did not insist on one KJV only.

I watched several tapes of Veith. He flatly stated that the NIV is a Jesuit Bible. This has no basis in fact. It is poor scholarship to make that kind of generalization.

And speaking of ad hominum attacks. What about the book by Gail Riplinger you recommended on one post? That book is filled with lies and slander against fine Christian leaders.

But again, we will have to leave it there. That BRI scholar presented honest facts. You did not point to one specific where he could be proven wrong. He just stated that Veith used conspiracy theories. Veith did remind me of Riplinger. They made similar claims.

Stan
In calling the NIV a Jesuit Bible Walter Veith was speaking of the Jesuit theology that it subtly supports, and he documents everything he says, often with published material that can be checked. If you watched "several tapes" of Walter Veith, he probably stepped on your toes a few times.  :-D And as I said before, in Ellen White's day there were not a flood of new translations as there are today. It was not an issue. I agree, we will have to agree to disagree.
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: Raven on March 25, 2011, 06:14:12 AM
If you compare the NIV with the RSV, with which Wescott and Hort were involved, you will see a lot of similarities.  The biases are pretty clear.  But, as Larry said, we will have to agree to disagree.
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: newbie on March 25, 2011, 10:57:45 AM
If you compare the NIV with the RSV, with which Wescott and Hort were involved, you will see a lot of similarities.  The biases are pretty clear.  But, as Larry said, we will have to agree to disagree.
thank you Raven  :-)
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: Soli Deo Gloria on March 25, 2011, 01:26:25 PM
If you compare the NIV with the RSV, with which Wescott and Hort were involved, you will see a lot of similarities.  The biases are pretty clear.  But, as Larry said, we will have to agree to disagree.

One more point--If Westcott and Hort are the problem, then it is true that EGW used Bibles from these sources, and I am quoting again from the scholar on the official SDA website:

E. G. White quoted from the English Revised Version (ERV) and the American Revised Version (ARV 1901, also
known as the American Standard Version [ASV]), both of which are based on the Westcott-Hort Greek text of the NT.6 
According to her son, W. C. White, she gave her secretary specific instructions to use the version that best reflected her
ideas. In her book The Ministry of Healing (1905), she took ten biblical texts from the ERV, more than fifty from the
ARV and a few texts from other versions.  That proves that she did not limit herself to the KJV.

When she later made important statements about inspiration (1 Selected Messages and the introduction to The Great Controversy), she did not warn against new translations. Evidently she saw in them no threat whatsoever to beliefs and theology.
----------------

Apparently, she didn't see a problem. Why is there a problem now?

The NIV is better that the RSV, but again, I don't use either one anymore.

Just to switch topics slightly--Does anyone on here have an opinion on the Clear Word Bible?

Stan
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: newbie on March 25, 2011, 01:29:34 PM

The NIV is better that the RSV, but again, I don't use either one anymore.

Just to switch topics slightly--Does anyone on here have an opinion on the Clear Word Bible?

Stan
Hi Stan,
I'm glad that you do not use either one anymore other than for comparison reasons.
Clear word bible is a paraphrase.  No hard in it but not for a deep study.  I find that children like it and it is a good start for them.
God Bless
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: Soli Deo Gloria on March 25, 2011, 02:21:06 PM

In the Adventist Review, the official periodical of the Seventh-day Adventist Church,
editor William Johnsson devoted the April 1995 issue to paraphrases of the Bible.
Concerning The Clear Word, he wrote:

The Clear Word goes beyond a paraphrase. Blanco injects his own
interpretations into the text: sometimes he adds, sometimes he deletes,
sometimes he supplies comments based on the writings of Ellen White,
sometimes he brings in ideas from other passages of the Bible, sometimes
he simply slants the text to make it say what he wants it to say.


-------------
I agree with Johnsson on this. There are actually texts that say the exact 180 degree opposite to what the KJV says.

Now, its true there are subtle changes in the NIV vs the KJV, the CWB grossly damages the original meaning from the KJV, In fact, there are some examples where it is serious enough to diminish the deity of Christ.

Has Walter Veith commented on this? He certainly would object to the CWB if he is consistent.

Stan
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: Ed Sutton on March 25, 2011, 03:00:42 PM
I have heard Blanco in person repeatedly say that the Clear Word is only his study notes compiled in book form, they are not a Bible, they are not a translation, and that if he had had any idea things would have went the way they have, he would never allowed publication.

When EGW used any Bible Text or passage of Texts - Who was directing her use which ones and how to use them ? 

None of the Bibles - KJV included - are equal to what is in Father God's right hand - HIS Book with the Seven Seals, the Book that tells everything and all details. 

God is in charge of all truth and all lies,  when Satan seeks to implant lies that God refuses to allow, God blocks the lies , when people refuse to love God's truths - once they passbeyond His patience - He chooses their delusions.   

God does not tempt, or lead into sin, nor speak lies, but He seperates His fingers of protection and guiding enough for Satan to have limited access.     Look at Job.

Arguing over versions when Newbie was not arguing but started a topic of comparison, is that not a derailing of the topic ?

To imitate Gideon's father speech to his neighbours , with a twist, If NIV is infalible as EGW said Scripture is, let NIV defend it's self, let NIV plead it's own case if NIV can .

Leave the Gideon's who would pull down NIV's idol and grove alone, let us see if NIV will plead it's own case,  if NIV is the Word of God it will be living and powerful and it's self with infallible words deal with it's enemies.

Otherwise check to see if NIV is a counterfeit version of Scripture crafted to deceive even the very elect.

If anyone on revivalsermons is trying to deceive, Jesus said not to allow that, let KJV defend it's self; starting with the history of NIV & KJV.
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: Ed Sutton on March 25, 2011, 03:33:39 PM

http://biblehistoryoftheversions.blogspot.com/

one of my blogs - Joe Crews History of the Versions

**********************

http://storage.amazingdiscoveries.org/assets/files/ADDownloads/References/RtR/Lec4/Select%20Historical%20Documents%20of%20the%20Middle%20Ages.pdf          Historical Documents of the Middle Ages

***************************

Answers To Objections By Francis D. Nichol  -An Examination of The Major Objections Raised Against The Teachings of Seventh-Day Adventists -

http://storage.amazingdiscoveries.org/assets/files/ADDownloads/eBooks/EGWhite/Answers-to-Objections.pdf

********************************

FUTURISM ATTACKS BIBLE PROPHECY - George Burnside
http://storage.amazingdiscoveries.org/assets/files/ADDownloads/eBooks/FUTURISM_ATTACKS_BIBLE_PROPHECY.pdf

***********************************

B. G. Wilkinson  - Authorized Bible Vindicated

http://www.sdadefend.com/MINDEX-Resource%20Library/Our%20Authorized%20Bible%20Vindicated.pdf


http://ancient-sda.com/ancient/authorised_version/chap_01.html#.
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: ejclark on March 25, 2011, 04:25:21 PM
Has anyone mentioned that all Bibles printed before 1900 were all translated from the Received Text and that previous to the early 1900's the Alexandrian Texts were rejected by all Bible Societies.

Mrs. White had no issue with different Bible translations in her day because the theology in all of them were in harmony.  Shortly after her death that changed.  Today, the only Bible translated from the Received Text is the KJV.
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: newbie on March 25, 2011, 05:14:10 PM
Has anyone mentioned that all Bibles printed before 1900 were all translated from the Received Text and that previous to the early 1900's the Alexandrian Texts were rejected by all Bible Societies.

Mrs. White had no issue with different Bible translations in her day because the theology in all of them were in harmony.  Shortly after her death that changed.  Today, the only Bible translated from the Received Text is the KJV.
excellent points EJ
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: Raven on March 25, 2011, 05:17:51 PM


Just to switch topics slightly--Does anyone on here have an opinion on the Clear Word Bible?

Stan

I don't own a copy, and have never read the book.  I tend to avoid paraphrases and, as Johnsson says, The Clear Word goes beyond paraphrase.  I use the SDA Bible Commentaries a lot, but in them it is clear as to what is Scripture, and what is their commentary on Scripture.  With The Clear Word, it would be easy to become confused as to what is extrapolation and what is pure Scripture.
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: Larry Lyons on March 25, 2011, 05:43:33 PM
Has anyone mentioned that all Bibles printed before 1900 were all translated from the Received Text and that previous to the early 1900's the Alexandrian Texts were rejected by all Bible Societies.

Mrs. White had no issue with different Bible translations in her day because the theology in all of them were in harmony.  Shortly after her death that changed.  Today, the only Bible translated from the Received Text is the KJV.
Well said EJ. Westcott and Hort, were very involved in preparing the Greek text that was the source of most of the new translations. As I stated earlier, one of their sons published letters that they exchanged concerning the preparation of the text. They clearly state in the letters that their goal was to make subtle "corrections" in Christian theology.

There is another aspect to the motivation for producing new translations. The publisher stands to make a lot of money if the translation becomes popular. The NIV is a good example. I don't get around to a lot of churches but I would guess the NIV is now the "pew Bible" in many churches including Adventist churches.

BTW, the theologians at the BRI are not inspired, and it has never been my understanding that they have authority to settle disagreements by issuing proclamations.
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: Agatha on March 26, 2011, 07:45:05 AM
When I had more time on my hands, I watched the Veith DVDs, typing as He spoke. Here are the differences he notes. It may add to your discussion:

Changing the Word
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: Agatha on March 26, 2011, 07:45:27 AM
NIV continued ...

Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: Agatha on March 26, 2011, 07:46:11 AM
RSV
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: Agatha on March 26, 2011, 07:46:52 AM
RSV continued ...

Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: Agatha on March 26, 2011, 07:47:27 AM
RSV concluded ...

Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: Agatha on March 26, 2011, 07:48:05 AM
ASV
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: Agatha on March 26, 2011, 07:48:58 AM
Douay
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: Raven on March 26, 2011, 10:29:25 AM
Thanks for all the information, Agatha.  Many of those changes are quite serious; a few might be considered by some to be merely semantic; but the omissions by the NIV are very dangerous, in my opinion.  Once you start removing texts who knows where it will stop--with the Jesus Seminar?
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: Soli Deo Gloria on March 26, 2011, 10:59:27 AM
Thanks Agatha for posting those changes.

It should be remembered that Dr Veith's area of expertise is in Zoology, and I respect greatly his work on creationism. He is not an expert on Biblical languages and the scholarship of analyzing manuscripts.

I did post a link above to a qualified Biblical scholar from the Biblical Research Institute on the official website of the Adventist church, and he clearly disagrees with Veith's analysis.  But the tendency is to want to believe everything Veith says, but to disregard an official SDA scholar. The comment was made that the BRI scholar is not inspired. But neither is Veith. I would encourage those who haven't done so to read the BRI scholar's analysis I posted earlier on the thread. Then one can decide.

Here is one example where he criticizes the NIV :

Rev 22:14
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: Soli Deo Gloria on March 26, 2011, 12:34:08 PM
The accusation is made against the NIV of diminishing the Deity of Christ.

It is interesting to compare the KJV with the NIV in John 1:18

John 1:18 KJV:
No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

John 1:18 NIV:
No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known
----------
The NIV statement is one of the strongest statements of the Deity of Christ that can be made. The KJV allows the possibility of the Arian view of Christ, which of course was the theology of the majority of the early SDA pioneers.

Stan
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: ejclark on March 26, 2011, 12:57:54 PM
Amos 3:7 "Surely the Lord GOD will do nothing, but He revealeth His secret unto His servants the prophets."

God gives the prophets, either by dream, vision or face to face (very rare), the messages He wants us to know.

2 Peter 1:20,21 "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."

The Holy Spirit gave the prophets total and perfect recall to reproduce the messages given them by God.

Rev. 22:18,19 "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
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."

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."

Either God has the power to perfectly preserve His Word or He doesn't.  Either the Holy Spirit was with all those involved with copying and translating Holy Scripture or He wasn't.  Either one version perfectly harmonizes with itself or it doesn't.  Either God has the power to produce one correct version or He doesn't.  Either I can rely upon one version, or I can rely upon none.

What God does not do, is He doesn't put this doctrinal truth in this version and another doctrinal truth in another version.  He doesn't put this pertinent detail in this version and another pertinent detail in another Isa. 8:20.  If He did, then we would have to rely upon the Holy Spirit to teach us which was truth and which was not, we would have to distinguish which part of a Bible is correct and which part of a Bible is incorrect.  And that is not what the Holy Spirit does.  The Holy Spirit doesn't teach us truth, He convicts us of the truth we learn.  To rely upon the Holy Spirit to teach us truth is the same thing that Spiritual Formation is based upon.  It's also where higher criticism comes into play.
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: Soli Deo Gloria on March 26, 2011, 12:58:00 PM
Here is some more evidence which shows that the NIV is the strongest translation affirming the Deity of Christ:

From the article by James White and quoting directly:

http://bible.org/article/why-respond-gail-riplinger

"At this point Mrs. Riplinger engaged the topic of the deity of Christ. It is just here that I have trouble with the KJV Only people in a way unlike any other, for I am actively involved in witnessing to those who deny the deity of Christ on a regular basis. It is a simple fact, known to any person who is active in evangelizing Jehovah
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: Ed Sutton on March 26, 2011, 01:32:37 PM
part-1

I am glad the NIV in those texts reaffirms the Deity of Christ.  

****************************
Back to an earlier post - You guys type faster than my one finger can go.    :-D

**********************************

KJV - Revelation 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.        

Douay - Revelation 22:14  Blessed are they that wash their robes in the blood of the Lamb: that they may have a right to the tree of life and may enter in by the gates into the city.

The punishment for sin is death.    The Douay version of Rev 22:14 allows for anyone to be saved after human probation has ceased and Jesus no longer intercedes, who have at one time have come to Jesus as they were, been pardoned, gotten baptized, had their names entered into the Lamb's Book of Life, then saying to themselves "once saved always saved" trusted to their own righteousness, and drifted back into disobedience, irrespective of what else Scripture says about the subject.  They no longer demonstrate obedience, therefore their sins are present tense not past tense.     Their case enters before Father God without the pardon and interceding and merits of the perfect life of Jesus.  They pay for their own sins.

KJV - Romans 3:25  Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

Douay - Romans 3:25  Whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation, through faith in his blood, to the shewing of his justice, for the remission of former sins,

Jesus said in relation to law keeping and entering into eternal life and in relation to His mercy shown by authorizing entrance into eternal life and retention in the Lamb's Book of Life, verses being blotted out of that Book - thus damned to the Lake of Fire in due time.

KJV -   Matthew 18:8  Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire.  

If what you see or do cause you to turn away from God through disobedience - cut that out of your life even if you feel maimed.
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: Ed Sutton on March 26, 2011, 01:35:39 PM
part-2   5K limit

Matthew 18:9  And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire.

If what you see or do cause you to turn away from God through disobedience - cut that out of your life even if you feel maimed.

Mark 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:

If what you see or do cause you to turn away from God through disobedience - cut that out of your life even if you feel maimed.

Matthew 19:17  And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.      

Cross reference with  



Titus 3:5  Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;        

 Exodus 20:6  And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

Deuteronomy 5:10  And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me and keep my commandments.

Deuteronomy 7:9  Know therefore that the LORD thy God, he is God, the faithful God, which keepeth covenant and mercy with them that love him and keep his commandments to a thousand generations;

Nehemiah 1:5  And said, I beseech thee, O LORD God of heaven, the great and terrible God, that keepeth covenant and mercy for them that love him and observe his commandments:

Daniel 9:4  And I prayed unto the LORD my God, and made my confession, and said, O Lord, the great and dreadful God, keeping the covenant and mercy to them that love him, and to them that keep his commandments;

Proverbs 19:16  He that keepeth the commandment keepeth his own soul; but he that despiseth his ways shall die.

Ezekiel 18:4  Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die.

Ezekiel 18:20  The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

Ezekiel 18: 21
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: Ed Sutton on March 26, 2011, 01:41:29 PM
last part - 5K limit

So in KJV - Jesus, Titus, Moses, Nehemiah,  Solomon, Ezekiel, Daniel > all agree because they spoke at the moving of the Holy Ghost.      

The translators of the KJV were aided by the Holy Spirit, and they considered not only language, but also application, context, the plan of salvation, and how the Holy Spirit opened their minds, they cleared the pseudoegraphia away also and rejected the counterfit manuscripts and forged manuscripts, then began translating from the Received Text, taking each text and passage and comparing it with the rest of Scripture.

 KJV does not allow for sinners to be saved nor enter Heaven, who continue in sin after mercy and propitiation  and probation has ceased. They live and die as sinners   >  

Revelation 22:11  He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still.

Exodus 34:7  Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: Soli Deo Gloria on March 26, 2011, 02:01:35 PM
Ed Sutton wrote:

KJV does not allow for sinners to be saved nor enter Heaven, who continue in sin after mercy and propitiation  and probation has ceased. They live and die as sinners   >   
----------------
Ed, you quoted extensively from a fundamentalist Baptist website which is fanatical about KJV only, and I posted their doctrinal statement:

http://www.biblebaptistpublications.org/aboutbiblebaptistchurch.html

Just look at what they teach about eternal security:

1) We believe that all the redeemed, once saved, are kept by God's power and are thus secure in Christ forever (John 6:37-40; 10:27-30; Rom. 8:1, 38-39; 1 Cor. 1:4-8; 1 Pet. 1:4-5; Eph. 4:30; John 5:24).

(2) We believe that it is the privilege of believers to rejoice in the assurance of their salvation through the testimony of God's word, which, however, clearly forbids the use of Christian liberty as an occasion to the flesh (Rom. 13:13-14; Gal. 5:13; Titus 2:11-15; 1 Cor. 11:31-32; Heb. 12:4-8; Rev. 3:19).
---------------
They got their doctrines, including eternal conscious torment from the KJV.

The truth of the matter is that there is only a 2% deviation among all the manuscripts, and very few of the changes are significant.

All the major denominations of Protestant Christainity agree on the essentials of salvation, and there is not much doctrinal deviation among the well accepted standard translations.

I pointed out above how the Deity of Christ is much superior in the NIV, rather than the KJV.

The KJV allows for the possibiity of Arianism (Christ being a created being) in several areas as outlined in my previous post. And again, we have the historical fact of Arianism being the majority doctrine in the early pioneers belief system.

There has been a resurgence recently back to Arainism among some SDAs, and we have seen them numerous times on this forum. It seems that they usually quote from some of these questionable KJV passages.

Stan
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: Soli Deo Gloria on March 26, 2011, 02:14:18 PM
For those of you who think that the Textus Receptus is the only truly inspired word, then please read this quote from the
SDA scholar at BRI that I posted at this link:

http://biblicalresearch.gc.adventist.org/documents/Textus%20Receptus%20and%20Modern%20Bible%20Translations.pdfII.

   Revelation 22:19 and the Textus Receptus According to the Textus Receptus,

 Revelation 22:19 reads:
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: Raven on March 26, 2011, 02:20:30 PM
Thanks Agatha for posting those changes.



Here is one example where he criticizes the NIV :

Rev 22:14
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: Raven on March 26, 2011, 02:30:54 PM
Whoever considers the Textus Receptus to be the inspired original text of the NT has to believe that the original Greek text of the NT was unknown until the year 1516 and must accept the Catholic priest and humanist Erasmus as an inspired writer of the New Testament.[/b]
---------------
So, the famous Roman Catholic scholar who opposed Martin Luther vehemently is who the KJV only people rely on.

Stan

 

I don't think anyone here is saying that the KJV is without problems, but, on the whole, it is a better translation.  It also uses the word "Easter,", which should read "passover."  The problems with the KJV seem to be fewer than with many of the modern translations.  Having a variety of translations from which to compare is desirable, but when I preach or when I want to memorize I use the KJV.  Memorizing from most of the modern translations is like trying to memorize from the newspaper.  The poetic quality that lends itself to memorization is lacking in the modern versions.

And by the way, Dr. Veith is quick to point out that he was converted with the NIV.
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: Ed Sutton on March 26, 2011, 02:34:34 PM
reply to Stan's post  
Quote
KJV does not allow for sinners to be saved nor enter Heaven, who continue in sin after mercy and propitiation  and probation has ceased. They live and die as sinners   >  
----------------
Ed, you quoted extensively from a fundamentalist Baptist website which is fanatical about KJV only, and I posted their doctrinal statement:
  


The KJV does not compromise it's self because a denomination decides to develop a creed and picks what they like and reject the rest.     Otherwise there would have been no need of the prophecy and command contained in Revelation chapter 10.

All religious groups would have been one denomination in belief, thought, and practice; if all had taken 100% of the Bible and followed it.

Textus Receptus simply means the received text, received from who.............the Bible writers, whom God inspired and they put into imperfect human speech .................. what He showed them.

Quote
The word and will of God are expressed in the Scriptures by inspired penmen. We should bind them as frontlets between our eyes, and walk according to their precepts; then we shall walk safely. Every chapter and every verse is a communication from God to man. In studying the word, the soul that hungers and thirsts for righteousness will be impressed by the divine utterances. Skepticism can have no power over a soul that with humility searches the Scriptures.--Vol. 4, p. 442.   {GW92 140.2}


Quote
The Bible is written by inspired men, but it is not God's mode of thought and expression. It is that of humanity. God, as a writer, is not represented. Men will often say such an expression is not like God. But God has not put Himself in words, in logic, in rhetoric, on trial in the Bible. The writers of the Bible were God's penmen, not His pen. Look at the different writers.  {7BC 945.9}

     It is not the words of the Bible that are inspired, but the men that were inspired. Inspiration acts not on the man's words or his expressions but on the man himself, who, under the influence of the Holy Ghost, is imbued with thoughts. But the words receive the impress of the individual mind. The divine mind is diffused. The divine mind and will is combined with the human mind and will; thus the utterances of the man are the Word of God (MS 24, 1886).  {7BC 945.10}

     Finite Vehicles of Thought.--The Lord speaks to human beings in imperfect speech, in order that the degenerate senses, the dull, earthly perception, of earthly beings may comprehend His words. Thus is shown God's condescension. He meets fallen human beings where they are. The Bible, perfect as it is in its simplicity, does not answer to the great ideas of God; for infinite ideas cannot be perfectly embodied in finite vehicles of thought. Instead of the expressions of the Bible being exaggerated, as many people suppose, the strong expressions break down before the magnificence of the thought, though the penman selected the most expressive language through which to convey the truths of higher education. Sinful beings can only bear to look upon a shadow of the brightness of heaven's glory (Letter 121, 1901).  {7BC 946.1}

Where the differences in translations does NOT affect the plan of salvation, and the human comprehension of what God is saying, we could easily wrestle and sweat over moot points.

We ought define what differences affect salvation, and the human comprehension of what God is saying, then wrestle and sweat with those issues.
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: Ed Sutton on March 26, 2011, 02:50:24 PM
I did not notice any reply to posts 54, 55, 56 - my 3 part reply to -

KJV - Revelation 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.       

Douay - Revelation 22:14  Blessed are they that wash their robes in the blood of the Lamb: that they may have a right to the tree of life and may enter in by the gates into the city.

Did anybody read it ?     or am I using Scripture to explain Scripture - to tell the why's - for nothing ?

Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: newbie on March 26, 2011, 03:19:08 PM

Either God has the power to perfectly preserve His Word or He doesn't.  Either the Holy Spirit was with all those involved with copying and translating Holy Scripture or He wasn't.  Either one version perfectly harmonizes with itself or it doesn't.  Either God has the power to produce one correct version or He doesn't.  Either I can rely upon one version, or I can rely upon none.

What God does not do, is He doesn't put this doctrinal truth in this version and another doctrinal truth in another version.  He doesn't put this pertinent detail in this version and another pertinent detail in another Isa. 8:20.  If He did, then we would have to rely upon the Holy Spirit to teach us which was truth and which was not, we would have to distinguish which part of a Bible is correct and which part of a Bible is incorrect.  And that is not what the Holy Spirit does.  The Holy Spirit doesn't teach us truth, He convicts us of the truth we learn.  To rely upon the Holy Spirit to teach us truth is the same thing that Spiritual Formation is based upon.  It's also where higher criticism comes into play.
well said
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: newbie on March 26, 2011, 03:20:14 PM
did a short study with a JW and I noticed when ever I tried to prove that there were other 'worlds' out there her bible substituted 'system of things'  which means nothing ....

Agatha,
Nice to hear from you and thank you for the study notes.
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: Agatha on March 26, 2011, 05:23:12 PM
 :salute: My pleasure, Newbie.
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: Larry Lyons on March 26, 2011, 07:38:40 PM
I did not notice any reply to posts 54, 55, 56 - my 3 part reply to -

KJV - Revelation 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.       

Douay - Revelation 22:14  Blessed are they that wash their robes in the blood of the Lamb: that they may have a right to the tree of life and may enter in by the gates into the city.

Did anybody read it ?     or am I using Scripture to explain Scripture - to tell the why's - for nothing ?


Ed you make a good point. Those who are antagonistic to the idea that there are serious problems in many of the new translations that impact important Christian apparantly ignore, or do not give weight to the impact of the significant number of verses and passages that have been altered, added or deleted in the new translations. It is not a matter of a text here and there, but the large number of these alterations that present a trend, a tendency to change the meaning of passages in a way that detracts from the pure gospel of Jesus Christ. 
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: Ed Sutton on March 26, 2011, 08:16:23 PM
My conclusions raised by the contrast between keeping His Commandments - verses - washing the robes,  then defacto entering into New Jerusalem and eating with permission from the tree of life and beginning the physical process of conditional eternal life ( continuing to eat from the tree of life without interruption )..............................raises a question that must be answered by God's word the Bible, and not polluted bread.  

Polluted bread in the form of any Bible Version can not be trusted because of the deliberate admixture of the poison of deliberate lies.  

Would you not agree that whatever Bible version lies  it is polluted bread ?

Micah 2:10  Arise ye, and depart; for this is not your rest: because it is polluted, it shall destroy you, even with a sore destruction.
Zephaniah 3:1  Woe to her that is filthy and polluted, to the oppressing city!
Zephaniah 3:4  Her prophets are light and treacherous persons: her priests have polluted the sanctuary, they have done violence to the law.
Malachi 1:7  Ye offer polluted bread upon mine altar; and ye say, Wherein have we polluted thee? In that ye say, The table of the LORD is contemptible.
8  And if ye offer the blind for sacrifice, is it not evil? and if ye offer the lame and sick, is it not evil? offer it now unto thy governor; will he be pleased with thee, or accept thy person? saith the LORD of hosts.
9  And now, I pray you, beseech God that he will be gracious unto us: this hath been by your means: will he regard your persons? saith the LORD of hosts.
10  Who is there even among you that would shut the doors for nought? neither do ye kindle fire on mine altar for nought. I have no pleasure in you, saith the LORD of hosts, neither will I accept an offering at your hand.
11  For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering: for my name shall be great among the heathen, saith the LORD of hosts.
12  But ye have profaned it, in that ye say, The table of the LORD is polluted; and the fruit thereof, even his meat, is contemptible.

John 17:17  Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.   Jesus says only truth sanctifies.


Titus 1:2  In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;    

John 8:44  Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

God cannot lie, only Satan lies.

1 John 1:5  This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.

God never is in partnership with the devil, Satan the father of lies.   God preserves His Word the Bible from lies.  If a book says it is the Bible, but it lies it is not the Bible but a counterfeit.

Which ever Bible version that never lies must answer this question.    No other Bible Version is trustworthy - only a version that never lies.

My question is this - using that always truthful Bible Version, which ever one it proves it's self to be.  

Will a sinner with sin's guilt upon him or her, as the Seven Last Plagues start, will they be saved or damned to destruction in the lake of fire ?
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: Soli Deo Gloria on March 26, 2011, 08:49:04 PM
Those who are antagonistic to the idea that there are serious problems in many of the new translations that impact important Christian apparantly ignore, or do not give weight to the impact of the significant number of verses and passages that have been altered, added or deleted in the new translations. It is not a matter of a text here and there, but the large number of these alterations that present a trend, a tendency to change the meaning of passages in a way that detracts from the pure gospel of Jesus Christ. 

Larry,
I am somewhat frustrated and disappointed in this response.
In light of the evidence I presented in my latest posts about how the NIV is even better on the Deity of Christ in about 9 different verses than the KJV, it is still being said that there is some sinister motive in these additions or deletions. The explanation by a scholar from the official GC website makes a lot of sense.

Unless one understands that most of the changes that are called alterations or changes are justified based on the best evidence of all the available and best manuscripts, your statement strikes me as somewhat unfair.

Stan
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: Larry Lyons on March 26, 2011, 09:57:49 PM
Larry,
I am somewhat frustrated and disappointed in this response.
In light of the evidence I presented in my latest posts about how the NIV is even better on the Deity of Christ in about 9 different verses than the KJV, it is still being said that there is some sinister motive in these additions or deletions. The explanation by a scholar from the official GC website makes a lot of sense.

Unless one understands that most of the changes that are called alterations or changes are justified based on the best evidence of all the available and best manuscripts, your statement strikes me as somewhat unfair.

Stan
Stan, nine good verses does make up for the 69 or 70 bad ones that Agatha listed.
All of the arguments in favor of the NIV and the other new translations are based on the presupposition that Greek text using earlier manuscripts that were discovered are superior to the manuscripts from a later date. That they are "best" is a presupposition that has never been, and cannot be proven, absent the original autographs. There are reasons to question the value of the earlier manuscripts based on their source, and their content. The Alexandrian manuscript was from a center of the occult and Christain heresy. Another other important earlier manuscript was found in the trash at a Roman Catholic monastery at Mt Sinai. A German scholar found it while visiting the monastery and he was allowed to take it because it had been discarded because of the crossing out of words and mistakes in the making the copy. It is not manuscript that should be given authority simply because iit is from an earlier date.

The fact that there are such a great number of discrepancies between the Greek text using these manuscripts and the Textus Receptus that tend to diminish the impact of verses and phrases that relate to important Christain doctrine should be enough to at least make one very wary of the NIV etc.
I answered your argument about the statement from the BRI already but you keep bringing it up. The author of that article  stated his antagonism towards Walter Veith at the beginning and accused him of annoying church members with his claims and accusing him of being a "conspiracy theorist." The author of the article is from probably the most liberal conferences in Europe, and where Dr. Veith had encountered a lot of resistance from conference leadership. My understanding is that the BRI itself has been considered too liberal for quite some time.

Under William Johnsson, the Review had an obvious liberal bias. I have a book he wrote several years ago (The Fragmenting of Adventism) in which he stated that the seventh-day Adventist church should get rid of all of its doctrines except about 8. So what he says about translations does not carry any weight, since he apparantly is not concerned about most Adventist teachings.

I believe it is the combination of the large number of problematic discrepancies and the dubious origen the the older manuscripts that are the main problem.

One more thing. As you know Walter Vieth was employed for many years as a  professor and research scientist and was at the top of his profession. He wasn't just a professor, he was a big deal in his field internationally. As a scientist  he is trained to bring a healthy skepticism to uncovering what is truth. I have watched literally dozens of his lectures. He does not present information that is not carefully evaluated and documented. The fact that he is a zoologist does not in anyway diminish his credentials to make evaluations and judgments about data concerning the Bible and other areas of spiritual interest.

Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: Raven on March 27, 2011, 03:30:37 AM

"Errors" in the King James Bible ( Copyright
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: newbie on March 27, 2011, 09:20:52 AM
I would like to respectfully disagree with this Baptist.  It looks like he didn't do his homework.

#1.  Since Herod wanted to please the Jews it is not unlikely that he observed the Passover.

#2.  The word pascha is never used for the Pagan holiday of "Ishtar;"  is us always used for the Jewish Passover.

Furthermore, the text states that those were "the days of unleavened bread."  This expression refers to the whole feast of the Passover, as can be seen from Luke 22:1.  So to assume that Peter was arrested after the Passover, rather then at the beginning of the feast, is to assume more than the text is saying.

I believe we are on solid ground when we translate this text "Passover."

I'm not sure why someone would go to such lengths to defend this one word.  Only by breaking the rules of exegesis can one arrive at these unwarranted conclusions.
It is obvious that Easter was a melding of pagan Ishtar and Jewish Passover feasts.  I accept the word Easter in KJV knowing that this has happened.

EGW advised us that the word 'sacrifice' was added incorrectly to texts that used the word 'daily' but no where do I see that she mentioned Easter was incorrectly used. 
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: Ed Sutton on March 27, 2011, 09:31:00 AM

the Easter vs 3957 pasca pascha question part 1 (5k limit)

No Frenemy fire among us please  :-D

The Baptist pastor made plausable sense - so I decided to use the Berean Method to see what was what, because accurate understanding of verse 3  is the time sensitive key to unlock the understanding of the matter.  If the plausable sense he gave is incorrect - consider he does not have the help of SOP.  I will have been under a wrong assumption while not exploring for myself what Scripture + SOP had to say, and I will gladly change this most recent view.

Acts 12:
3  And because he saw it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also. (Then were the days of unleavened bread.)
4  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<3957 > to bring him forth to the people.


3957 pasca pascha pas
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: Ed Sutton on March 27, 2011, 09:32:38 AM
conclusion

Easter = 5 SOP hits the GC appendices show a huge Church tumult over Easter vs Passover and Communion

( Peter Herod = 56  SOP hits )
Hit #1 is telling  
Quote
While, upon various pretexts, the execution of Peter was being delayed until after the Passover, the members of the church had time for deep searching of heart and earnest prayer. They prayed without ceasing for Peter, for they felt that he could not be spared from the cause. They realized that they had reached a place where, without the special help of God, the church of Christ would be destroyed.  {AA 145.1}  

Hit # 17
Quote
Herod was professedly a proselyte to the Jewish faith, and apparently very zealous in perpetuating the ceremonies of the law. The government of Judea was in his hands, subject to Claudius, the Roman emperor; he also held the position of tetrarch of Galilee. Herod was anxious to obtain the favor of the Jews, hoping thus to make secure his offices and honors. He therefore proceeded to carry out the desires of the Jews in persecuting the church of Christ. He began his work by spoiling the houses and goods of the believers; he then began to imprison the leading ones. He seized upon James and cast him into prison, and there sent an executioner to kill him with a sword, as another Herod had caused the prophet John to be beheaded. He then became bolder, seeing that the Jews were well pleased with his acts, and imprisoned Peter. These cruelties were performed during the sacred occasion of the passover.  {3SP 334.1}

"The people applauded the act of Herod in causing the death of James, though some of them complained of the private manner in which it was accomplished, maintaining that a public execution would have had the effect to more thoroughly intimidate all believers and sympathizers. Herod therefore held Peter in custody for the purpose of gratifying the Jews by the public spectacle of his death. But it was suggested to the ruler that it would not be safe to bring the veteran apostle out for execution before all the people who were assembled in Jerusalem for the passover. It was feared that his venerable appearance might excite their pity and respect; they also dreaded lest he should make one of those powerful appeals which had frequently roused the people to investigate the life and character of Jesus Christ, and which they, with all their artifice, were totally unable to controvert. In such a case, the Jews apprehended that his release would be demanded at the hands of the king.  {3SP 335.2}
     Peter's ardent zeal in vindicating himself, and in advocating the cause of Christ, had lost to the Jews many of their brethren, and they stood in great dread of his having an opportunity to lift up his voice in the presence of all the nations and people that had come to the city to worship. Therefore the apostle was placed under charge of sixteen soldiers, who alternated in guarding him day and night. But it was in vain that the puny arm of man was lifted against the Lord. He, by the putting forth of his might, was about to stay the precious blood which the Jews would have been emboldened to shed, had not divine power interposed.  {3SP 336.1}
     While the execution of Peter was being delayed, upon various pretexts, until after the passover,  

Summation:

The well meaning Baptist pastor was wrong about Easter vs Passover not being a translator mistake, I thought he was plausible, and studied it out and found his assumption about verse 3, was wrong and his conclusion about verse 4 was therefore honestly incorrect.

I gladly change my recent view to what Scripture AND SOP reveal.   Soon after visiting Jews of all nations during Passover were gone, Herod was going to publically execute Peter to terrify the Christan Jews in Jerusalem.    <3957> pasca pascha is PASSOVER not Easter.  I hunt for absolutes from Inspiration to trust in, I found a new one,  ......................be happy for me, I am :-D
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: Larry Lyons on March 27, 2011, 11:46:32 AM
I would like to add to something I said earlier about the reason for the plethora of new translations that have appeared over the past several decades. It is often reported that the Bible is the best selling book in the world accounting for a huge amount of sales revenue for the publishers.  However the King James Version can't be copyrighted, so a publisher will come out with a "Study Bible" with all kinds of bells and whistles to make their Bible unique, hoping to get a bigger share of the Bible market.
Another way is to produce a new translation, hoping it will catch on with the public. The NIV has been very successful in this regard because of its current English and its readability for the general public.
My point is that there are huge amounts of money at stake for the publoishers on the issue of the reliability of the translations in presenting the truth that God once delivered to the original wirters of Scripture. It seems to me that accepting Westcott and Hort's Greek text based on what are very likely corrupted manuscripts has been a successful gamble for the publishers in terms of finances, but the result has been confusion and disagreement over what the inspired writers of the original manuscripts really intended.

Ye shall know them by their fruits. Matt. 7:16.
For God is not the author of confusion. 1Cor. 14:33
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: Raven on March 27, 2011, 11:53:38 AM
the Easter vs 3957 pasca pascha question part 1 (5k limit)

No Frenemy fire among us please  :-D



I hope I didn't sound like I was picking on you, Ed.  My comments were all directed toward the Baptist who wrote the book.

Thanks for the SOP quote.  I figured she had something to say about it, but wasn't sure exactly where.
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: Soli Deo Gloria on March 27, 2011, 02:07:39 PM
The gross mistranslation and intentional changing of the Word Paschal to Easter in Acts 12 in the KJV shows the bias of the KJV translators, from the Church of England of whom some were quite liberal in their views. This might explain that all the texts that speak clearly of Christ's Deity are somewhat downplayed as compared to the clear NIV texts--nine of them that I mentioned earlier.

I would like to add to something I said earlier about the reason for the plethora of new translations that have appeared over the past several decades. It is often reported that the Bible is the best selling book in the world accounting for a huge amount of sales revenue for the publishers.  However the King James Version can't be copyrighted, so a publisher will come out with a "Study Bible" with all kinds of bells and whistles to make their Bible unique, hoping to get a bigger share of the Bible market.
Another way is to produce a new translation, hoping it will catch on with the public. The NIV has been very successful in this regard because of its current English and its readability for the general public.
My point is that there are huge amounts of money at stake for the publoishers on the issue of the reliability of the translations in presenting the truth that God once delivered to the original wirters of Scripture. It seems to me that accepting Westcott and Hort's Greek text based on what are very likely corrupted manuscripts has been a successful gamble for the publishers in terms of finances, but the result has been confusion and disagreement over what the inspired writers of the original manuscripts really intended.

Ye shall know them by their fruits. Matt. 7:16.
For God is not the author of confusion. 1Cor. 14:33

Larry,
You seemed to say that the BRI scholar from Germany was a liberal because he came from a liberal seminary.
This could be an example of guilt by association.
Did you read the whole article that he wrote? And if you did, and then conclude that he is a liberal, then I respect your opinion.

As I said, I respect Dr Veith's work in creation science, but that doesn't mean he is an expert in Bible translations and the original Greek languages.

Liike, Dr Veith, I am a scientist, but only expert in the field of hospital medicine. This doesn't mean I can't also be interested in the Bible and be able to analyze data with regard to it, as is Dr Veith. But, still we must respect Bible scholars who are expert in the field, and who are also faithful to the conservative views of scripture.

There are other good Adventist scholars I respect such as the late Raymond Cottrell, the former editor of the SDA Bible commentary.

But another scholar that deserves my respect is Dr Sam Pipim, who has a Phd not only in systematic theology, but in engineering, so I would say his scholarly credentials qualify him to be an expert on Bible translations. Do you think he agrees with Walter Veith?

Has anyone read Dr Pipim's book "Receiving the Word"? It can be read online at this link:

http://www.drpipim.org/receiving-the-word.pdf

I would suggest to begin reading at page 170, and you will get an objective solid analysis of the data with regard to the manuscripts. You won't find him making pejorative statements such as "the NIV is a Jesuit Bible".

I want to quote from Dr Pipim in my next post.

Stan




Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: Soli Deo Gloria on March 27, 2011, 02:21:40 PM
Quoting from Dr Pipim on page 174 from the above linked book:

The King James Version.
 Our popular King James Version Bible is based on the work of the foremost sixteenth-century Renaissance Dutch scholar, Desiderius Erasmus (1469-1536). To produce a copy of the New Testament text for publication on the newly estalished movable-type printing press, Erasmus went to Basel, Switzerland, where, upon examining a number of Greek manuscripts in its libraries, he selected a half-dozen of them as good representatives. After nine months of work, he produced an edited version from the chosen Greek manuscripts.
Although Erasmus himself acknowledged that his work was "done headlong rather than edited," his Greek New Testament became the standard, almost the sole printed Greek text from the sixteenth century to the nineteenth. It is often known as "the Received Text" (Latin, Textus Receptus), a title given to it almost 100 years after Erasmus's death in publisher Elzevir's second edition of the work (1633). This Greek text, which later became the basis ofthe King James Version of the Bible, "is not the 'received text' in the sense that it has been received from God as over against other Greek manuscripts. Rather, it is the 'received text' in the sense that it was the standard one at the time of the Elzevirs."16
------------------
So notice Pipim is not saying that this manuscript is more received because it is more inspired by God, than the other manuscripts that are used for other versions.

Pipim goes on:
However, since the nineteenth century, when scholars began to discover other manuscripts, many translations of the Bible have been made. Unlike the King James Version, most of the recent translations did not use only a half-dozen Greek manuscripts, but rather hundreds of early manuscripts; their Greek texts required not nine months of work, but rather years of labor; not one person, but dozens and scores of scholars have collaborated in producing the current standard Greek New Testament texts.
While there are variations, the differences between "the Received Text" of the King James Version and the present standard Greek texts are so minor that there is practically very little difference between the two.
-------------------
So here it is from a true scholar in his field. He is saying that the KJV may not be as reliable as the newer translations due to the lack of the number of Greek manuscripts used in their preparation.

More to come, as he has a lot more insightful information to add to this topic.

Stan

Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: Soli Deo Gloria on March 27, 2011, 02:41:01 PM
Pipim goes on:

Usefulness of Different Versions.

Just as the Holy Spirit guided in the copying and re-copying of the ancient texts, one can also expect the Spirit to speak through the different translations--whether King James Version, New International Version, RSV...

Every translation is an imperfect human attempt to communicate, in contemporary language, God's message which the prophets and apostles first communicated in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. Each Bible translation has its own strengths and weaknesses. One can overcome most of the translation distortions simply by using different Bible versions in studying the Scriptures.18 In the next chapter we shall offer suggestions on how to select appropriate Bible versions.
Those who are distressed by the proliferation of Bible versions will benefit from an insightful statement found in the preface of some of the earliest editions of the King James Version:
"We do not deny, nay we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English set forth by men of our profession . . . containeth the word of God, nay is the word of God: As the King's speech, which he uttered in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian, and Latin, is still the King's speech, though it be not interpreted by every translator with the like grace, nor peradventure so fitly for phrase, nor so expressly for sense, everywhere . . . [there is] no cause therefore why the word translated should be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be current, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it."19
---------------------------

Moving on to chapter 9 and page 195:

Select an appropriate Bible version.

 Where one cannot read the original languages in which the Bible was given, one must choose a Bible translation. Select a Bible version that is faithful to the meaning contained in Hebrew or Greek, giving preference to translations done by a broad group of scholars rather than by an individual, a small group, or a particular denomination.

----------------
So, his above description fits more closely with the NIV rather than the KJV

Pipim continues:
With so many Bible versions in English, it is important to choose carefully the version in which to study the Bible. Two helpful guides to selecting English Bibles are the books So Many Versions and The English Bible from KJV to NIV:

Sakae Kubo and Walter Specht, So Many Versions: Twentieth Century English Versions of the Bible (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1975); Jack P. Lewis, The English Bible from KJV to NIV: A History and Evaluation (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1991). In these two works, one will find a detailed evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses of the major English translations.
-----------------

Sakae Kubo and Walter Specht are two other well respected SDA scholars who are expert in this field.

I hope the above quotes help to put this topic in some perspective, so we can be rational in our choosing translations, rather than relying on the hearsay evidence of people like Riplinger and others.

Stan

Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: newbie on March 27, 2011, 04:13:33 PM
I would prefer to think that my KJV 1611 bible was inspired by God and not just written by men...
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: Larry Lyons on March 27, 2011, 05:09:05 PM
Stan, it doesn't matter how many "experts" you come up with who defend the new translations. Many of the descrepancies that diminish improtant Christian doctrines have been laid aout for all to see. There are just too many to ignore. I doubt that many of those who defend the new translations have actually made or the seen verse by verse comparisons. If the stream is poluted, the water will not be pure. The manuscripts, the Alexandrian and Siniaticus in particular, used to prepare the Greek Text from which the translators worked cannot be trusted.  Being older does not make them better.

!. The earlier manuscripts used cannot be trusted and shouldn't be accepted because of their source. Reasons for this were posted earlier.

2. A verse by verse comparison between NIV (and other translations) and KJV demonstrates significant problems with the NIV (and others) relating to important Christian teachings. Agatha posted some of these earlier.

 3. Westcott and Hort, two of the principle preparers of the Greek text from which the translators worked were involved in spiritualism and the occult, and did not believe in some of the Key Christian doctrines, especially concerning Christ and the Triune God. In their personal letters, they admitted that their intention in their work of preparing the Greek text, was to secretly make subtle changes in Christian doctrine. These men were not trustworthy and were not  spiritually qualified, to engage in any work having to do with Holy Scripture.

Those are the key issues.


Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: ejclark on March 27, 2011, 07:46:49 PM
For those who have a weak grasp upon Biblical inspiration, preservation and application to doctrine will not understand how the KJV is so much more in harmony with its self and the others are so out of harmony with themselves.  Spiritual things are spiritually discerned 1Cor. 2:14.  This is a spiritual issue based upon spiritual understanding, not literary history which Satan has had so much time to corrupt by now.  The practice of spiritual formation in the form of higher criticism used in the writing of the new versions of the Bibles won't be understood by those who haven't come that far to understand such things.  I encourage the study of the Three Angels Messages and their relationship to Rev. 13.  These verses are the most important for our day and age.  This Advent message can only be taught through the KJV Bible.  All other versions literally destroy the Three Angels Messages.
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: Ed Sutton on March 27, 2011, 08:06:29 PM
During this discussion somethings must be noticed.

1. The Bible's mission is to get Satan out of us and Heaven into us and sealed there.

2. The Bible's mission is to train us how to receive what God offers and use it to put our selves into position to obtain Heaven through God's mercy on His terms.

3. No Bible can force us to do that, no matter if it was God's own penmanship, He came in the flesh and many refused, ink is even easier to ignore.

4. If any Bible explained everything faith could not exist, and no one would overcome Adam's faithlessness contrasted with his desires for Eve at any cost.

5. God works and never lies,  Satan works and always lies, usually mixing it with truth, totally truthless counterfeits are worthless; no bank teller is fooled by a $ 4.00 Bill.   Satan is smarter than any of our species, and if in the persuit of anything even truth, God may remove His hand over our mind and choose our delusions, and we then will think ourselves wide when we are spiritually blind and stupid.


6.   walking with God or away from him is progressive, Satan would love to have us disagree and hate; it would help win his war.

KJV 1 John 4:8  He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.<26>

Douay 1 John 4:8  He that loveth not knoweth not God: for God is charity.

KJV-John 17:3  And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

Douay-17:3  Now this is eternal life: That they may know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

The SOP character perfection definition at last a perfect compliment to 1st Corinthians Ch 13 & John Ch 17.  

Quote
 When we reflect Christ's image, we shall love one another as He has loved us. We shall not love as we love our neighbor, but as Christ loved us. It is an advance to love as Christ loved. [size=14 point] This is the perfection of Christian character. When we can say, My will is wholly submerged in God's will, then peace and rest come in. [/size] {7MR 389.1}    

     [size=14 point] We must have that love, else we cannot be perfect before God. We may be active, we may do much work, but unless we love as Christ loved, our candlestick will be removed out of its place. . . .[/size]  {7MR 389.2}

     We have little enough of Christ's character. We need it all through our ranks,  [size=14point] We must reveal that love which dwelt in Jesus. Then we shall keep the commandment [that we love one another], which not one in a hundred of those who claim to believe the truth for this time are keeping. . . .[/size][/b]  {7MR 389.3}

     Perfect unity must exist in a diversity of gifts. A union of all the gifts is essential. The one great commandment Christ has given is a new commandment. It reaches beyond loving our neighbor as we love ourselves. We are to love one another, "as I," said Christ, "have loved you." This experience must be obtained by every child of God. All must blend together in the work, thus making the work not onesided, but a complete whole.--Letter 121, 1898, pp. 6-8. (To S. N. Haskell and wife, December 12, 1898.)    

Do a Strong's word search on <25>, <26>, <5360>, <5361>, <5384>   ignore all translator definitions, look at the texts what they say as you pull them up using each Strong's number.  Their message in those texts and passages are more profound than translator definitions, let Bible Biographies speak bigger lessons.

Loveless pharisees were without God's love in them and Jesus said how can you escape HELL, the same can be said to loveless conservatives loveless liberals, loveless progressives, loveless historicist's.        If our discussion assumes more importance than the people discussing, has love already left ?   has anger and pride taken it's place ?

It's not my choice which version someone used or if God reached them while using it,  I just want to establish in this modern soul - fish off , that there is a Bible that is a true Bible and not a religious collection of fishooks conected to a very long line under the lake .    Jesus warned let NO man deceive you, Do not let anyone take your crown of life.  
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: Soli Deo Gloria on March 28, 2011, 12:29:20 AM
Stan, it doesn't matter how many "experts" you come up with who defend the new translations.


Larry,
The way you put "experts" above in quotes really surprises me. I don't know what to think. You complained that the BRI scholar on the official GC website was too liberal. Yet, you did not answer whether you had read his entire article.

Then I quote extensively from a very conservative and I thought respected theologian on this website, that of course being Sam Pipim. He has been given as an example of a true conservative SDA. When you put "experts" in quotes, it appears that you don't respect his expertise in this field. You are at least subtly attacking church scholars by your responses. You also said you don't trust William Johnsson.

Did you at least read the pages I mentioned in Pipim's book, starting at page 170? I think it would be helpful to get a different opinion from this well respected scholar. Please show where he is wrong in his assessment of the manuscripts used in translation.

Many of the descrepancies that diminish improtant Christian doctrines have been laid aout for all to see. There are just too many to ignore. I doubt that many of those who defend the new translations have actually made or the seen verse by verse comparisons.


Here again is what Pipim said about this:

However, since the nineteenth century, when scholars began to discover other manuscripts, many translations of the Bible have been made. Unlike the King James Version, most of the recent translations did not use only a half-dozen Greek manuscripts, but rather hundreds of early manuscripts; their Greek texts required not nine months of work, but rather years of labor; not one person, but dozens and scores of scholars have collaborated in producing the current standard Greek New Testament texts.
While there are variations, the differences between "the Received Text" of the King James Version and the present standard Greek texts are so minor that there is practically very little difference between the two.
--------------------

Are you saying Pipim is unaware of the differences?

Larry, I wish you would give more specific examples of what major key doctrines have been changed by the new translations. I gave specific examples where the NIV is superior on the Deity of Christ. And then there is that insertion of Easter in the KJV, when it was obvious that this was a manipulation of the text.

Stan
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: Soli Deo Gloria on March 28, 2011, 12:37:29 AM
The manuscripts, the Alexandrian and Siniaticus in particular, used to prepare the Greek Text from which the translators worked cannot be trusted.  Being older does not make them better.


Larry, I don't mean any disrespect, but you have not posted any hard evidence for this. You have recommended a book by Gail Riplinger, and you say that Walter Veith says this on his DVDs. I don't find this at all in reading Pipim. Certainly, you can find links on the internet which would back your statements up. I am willing to listen, but I want to see quotes from experts in the field who have formal training in this field. I would even like to see direct quotes from Dr. Veith. I am sure one can find where he wrote material on this that can be found on the internet. What I see on his videos, is a charming speaker who entertains the audience, even mocking the NIV at times.


 3. Westcott and Hort, two of the principle preparers of the Greek text from which the translators worked were involved in spiritualism and the occult, and did not believe in some of the Key Christian doctrines, especially concerning Christ and the Triune God. In their personal letters, they admitted that their intention in their work of preparing the Greek text, was to secretly make subtle changes in Christian doctrine. These men were not trustworthy and were not  spiritually qualified, to engage in any work having to do with Holy Scripture.


Again, Larry, all I would like to see is links to this material showing this. I know that Riplinger says this and you said Veith documented this on his DVDs, but again, information should be available on the internet. Again, if these men were conspiring to denigrate key Christian doctrine, then why is the NIV clearly better with regard to the Deity of Christ?

I don't know what more solid evidence from reputable SDA scholars I could post if it is not the likes of Sam Pipim?

The bottom line is that all the major translations will lead people to Christ, and are reliable. No one will go to perdition because they read the NIV on a daily basis.

I thank God for his providence in preserving His wonderful Word through imperfect vessels of his grace.

God's Word is absolutely flawless and inerrant. But He has chosen imperfect vessels to transmit this Word to us. Praise God indeed!

Stan

Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: Raven on March 28, 2011, 03:00:41 AM
I encourage the study of the Three Angels Messages and their relationship to Rev. 13.  These verses are the most important for our day and age.  This Advent message can only be taught through the KJV Bible.  All other versions literally destroy the Three Angels Messages.

I have been pointing out in my Sabbath School class for many years the fact that in virtually all the modern versions, Dan. 8:14 reads something other than "the sanctuary be cleansed."  This increases the difficulty of teaching the Investigative Judgment.  However, Clifford Goldstein has done a masterful job in showing that the KJV (and NKJV) rendering of Dan. 8:14 is a good translation.  My French Bible says the same thing, as does the Spanish Bible.  

Why does it appear that only in English do we have a plethora of confusing translations?  Could it be that the devil knows that if he can muddy the waters in the English speaking world, he will have greater success with the rest of the world?  If 10 translations say 10 different things, one would likely throw up their hands in frustration and decide that it doesn't really matter.  The lamb-like beast that speaks like a dragon is part of the English speaking world.  Is that  just a coincidence?
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: Larry Lyons on March 28, 2011, 09:33:33 AM
Stan, I have almost all of Dr. Pipim's books and I have read them. I highly respect him, but I do not believe he researched this subject thoroughly. His field is systematic theology. That does not make him an expert in Bible manuscripts and translations. You have researched this subject thoroughly.  The BRI man in Germany displayed his hostility towards Vieth in the beginning of hs article. If you have watched Veith's presentationos you have seen plenty documentation already. It is right there for you to check. If you think Vieth is a liar, I don't know what ellse to say. Agatha posted many texts. Even though there are flaws in Riplingers book it does not mean every thing she said is wrong. She has presented many side by side comparisons of verses that anyone can check for themselves. You have not presented "hard evidence" that supports your claims about the virtues of NIV.
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: Ed Sutton on March 28, 2011, 11:46:10 AM
http://biblehistoryoftheversions.blogspot.com/2011/03/kjv-history-links-from-online.html
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: newbie on March 28, 2011, 12:11:24 PM
For those who have a weak grasp upon Biblical inspiration, preservation and application to doctrine will not understand how the KJV is so much more in harmony with its self and the others are so out of harmony with themselves.  Spiritual things are spiritually discerned 1Cor. 2:14.  This is a spiritual issue based upon spiritual understanding, not literary history which Satan has had so much time to corrupt by now.  The practice of spiritual formation in the form of higher criticism used in the writing of the new versions of the Bibles won't be understood by those who haven't come that far to understand such things.  I encourage the study of the Three Angels Messages and their relationship to Rev. 13.  These verses are the most important for our day and age.  This Advent message can only be taught through the KJV Bible.  All other versions literally destroy the Three Angels Messages.
Exactly...thank you for that!!
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: newbie on March 28, 2011, 12:13:00 PM
I have been pointing out in my Sabbath School class for many years the fact that in virtually all the modern versions, Dan. 8:14 reads something other than "the sanctuary be cleansed."  This increases the difficulty of teaching the Investigative Judgment.  However, Clifford Goldstein has done a masterful job in showing that the KJV (and NKJV) rendering of Dan. 8:14 is a good translation.  My French Bible says the same thing, as does the Spanish Bible.  

Why does it appear that only in English do we have a plethora of confusing translations?  Could it be that the devil knows that if he can muddy the waters in the English speaking world, he will have greater success with the rest of the world?  If 10 translations say 10 different things, one would likely throw up their hands in frustration and decide that it doesn't really matter.  The lamb-like beast that speaks like a dragon is part of the English speaking world.  Is that  just a coincidence?
Good points!!  Thank you.
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: Soli Deo Gloria on March 28, 2011, 01:04:38 PM
Stan, I have almost all of Dr. Pipim's books and I have read them. I highly respect him, but I do not believe he researched this subject thoroughly. His field is systematic theology. That does not make him an expert in Bible manuscripts and translations.

Larry,
Have you read Pipim's book on this topic? Did you read the pages I specified on the direct link to Pipim's book?  His book is on the reliability of scripture. How can you say he hasn't researched this topic thoroughly? Does a man write a book on this very topic, and then not do the research?

Sam Pipim's website has a link to this website Revival Sermons. I wonder if he would come on here and answer questions about this?

I wonder how he would take it if he saw that the moderator of this website is saying that he did not research this topic?

Stan

BTW, one can watch the entire Battle of the Bible series by Walter Veith on you tube at this link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eq-h6YyyfWI

I am in the process of viewing this now and will answer him in the near future when I get time. At least I will read or watch any information you can come up with
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: Soli Deo Gloria on March 28, 2011, 01:16:17 PM

 3. Westcott and Hort, two of the principle preparers of the Greek text from which the translators worked were involved in spiritualism and the occult, and did not believe in some of the Key Christian doctrines, especially concerning Christ and the Triune God. In their personal letters, they admitted that their intention in their work of preparing the Greek text, was to secretly make subtle changes in Christian doctrine. These men were not trustworthy and were not  spiritually qualified, to engage in any work having to do with Holy Scripture.

Here is a statement by George Reid on the official Biblical Research Institute website, and he is speaking for the SDA church, since it is their official website:

http://biblicalresearch.gc.adventist.org/documents/Authority%20of%20the%20Bible.htm

Quoting directly:

What about the manuscript sources of the various Bible translations?
Is it true that the most faithful source is the Textus Receptus compiled by Erasmus and used as the basis for the Luther Bible, French Bible, and the King James English Bible?

   While at one time this was probably correct, it is no longer the case. In creating the Textus Receptus, Erasmus, although a great scholar, had access to only eight manuscripts, all from the so-called Byzantine family of biblical manuscripts. And the oldest of Erasmus' documents dated only from the ninth century. This meant that his oldest manuscript represented at least eight centuries of copying and re-copying, which allowed substantial opportunity for errors to creep in through accidental miscopying or scribal additions and omissions. However, Erasmus' version was superior to anything else at that time.

        This situation no longer applies today. Since the time of Erasmus, Luther, and the King James translators, we have discovered far older biblical manuscripts that date to the fifth, fourth, and in fragments even to the second century. Such sources have at least a 500-year copying advantage over the best manuscript Erasmus consulted. Therefore they offer much less chance of accidental mistakes. Two of these, Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Alexandrinus, are on display at the present time in the British Museum. Expert specialists have studied them carefully and have found no evidence that someone has tampered with the text.

        Based on a huge number of manuscripts, including the most ancient available texts, in the late 1800s two famed British scholars, professors Wescott and Hort, prepared a new composite biblical text, one superior in quality to that of Erasmus. It became the basis of the English revision of the King James Version published in full in 1885. Immediately after its publication Ellen White began to consult it and often incorporated its readings into her books and articles. Clearly she had no reluctance to use it because of its manuscript base.
-------------------

So why did Ellen White use scripture from Westcott and Hort, if the case as stated by Walter Veith and yourself is correct?

God would certainly warn Ellen White and tell people that any Bible from that source is polluted. But there is no statement from her on this.

Stan

Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: Soli Deo Gloria on March 28, 2011, 01:24:01 PM
Here is another quote from George Reid from the website above:

Recently a few Adventists have called for exclusive use of the King James Version (itself last revised in 1769) on the grounds that modern Greek and Hebrew texts have been subjected to possible alteration at the hands of Catholic scholars, whereas Erasmus' Textus Receptus was not. They seem to forget that Erasmus himself was a Catholic scholar. Moreover, the late manuscripts Erasmus used were all drawn from Catholic monasteries, where they had been copied and re-copied over the centuries, so exposing them to very great opportunities to change. Ironically, the most ancient manuscripts used for today's translations were in Catholic hands for 500 years less than Erasmus' manuscripts. One would expect the defenders of the King James Version to take note of this fact if their concern is about possible corruption of the text. These people, although undoubtedly sincere, have failed to take all the evidence into account, and by spreading an alarm about newer versions are doing the cause of Christ a disservice.

------------
The above is a very strong statement. It is serious business to allege what Walter Veith is alleging, if he is not telling the whole truth.

His video does not mention the above facts about  Erasmus and Catholicism. In Veith's book, "Truth Matters", he actually talks about how a corrupted text was fromCatholic sources. But what about the Textus Preceptus?

Stan
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: Ed Sutton on March 28, 2011, 02:20:32 PM
http://biblehistoryoftheversions.blogspot.com/2011/03/kjv-history-links-from-online.html
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: Soli Deo Gloria on March 28, 2011, 02:36:58 PM
Here is where the idea that Westcott and Hort were connected with spiritism and the occult came from:

This is from the very conservative Biblical scholar James White, and the article critiquing Gail Riplinger that I posted early in this discussion:

http://bible.org/article/why-respond-gail-riplinger

Finally, I wish to address very briefly Mrs. Riplinger
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: ejclark on March 28, 2011, 03:39:54 PM
Thank you newbie for your support.

Larry, Ed and Raven, keep up the good work.

Stan.....not sure what to say brother except thank you for being patient with us.  For myself, I have spent over six years comparing version with version and scripture with scripture.  And I still do so.  I've never leaned upon the studies and teachings of men where they make the claims that such-and-such transcript came from here and this Bible version came from there.  All my decisions are based upon "precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, there a little."  This makes all translations fend for themselves and prove themselves for what they really are.  If you want God to teach you which "Word" is truth, then you have to spend time in the "Word" and only use the information of the "experts" as places to explore, the "experts" can't be the authoritative voice for God's written "Word".  You have to learn this on your own comparing scripture with scripture.
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: Ed Sutton on March 28, 2011, 05:16:27 PM
my link to my Blog -


http://biblehistoryoftheversions.blogspot.com/2011/03/looking-up-ghostly-guild-look-under.html

I wanted to find out the history of Wescott and Hort so I went hunting, and put it in the blog, I edited the blog to include the last link also.     If a person goes job hunting the prospective employer asks for references, usually former supervisors and or former co-workers.  Such a hunt here is legitimate,  Wescott & Hort died well before I was born; I must rely upon their contemporaries.  I look for theological opposites to testify as long as those opposites have reputation even among enemies as honest persons.

Dean Burgon & Wilberforce  were contemporaties of Wescott and Hort, Wilberforce worked with them in translation efforts for awhile.      What do Burgon and Wilberforce say about Wescott and Hort ?

http://www.deanburgonsociety.org/Preservation/westcott.htm
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: Ed Sutton on March 28, 2011, 06:13:03 PM
Stan

How is your wife ?   

How are you ?

This discussion has simply said - both sides have Bible versions they love.

Both sides want respect for their Bible versions.

Neither side is wanting to be forced to change .

I think the discussion is not surving any further purpose. 

Do you see any further purpose to debating this topic ?   If so please tell me and the rest of us. 

I hope your wife and you have more peaceful times together,  put aside the stress of this debate and make her's and your time together as happy as is possible.

None of us can change what any translator did or did not do.   We have our todays, use those as best can be done.

Ed
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: Soli Deo Gloria on March 28, 2011, 09:06:07 PM

Stan.....not sure what to say brother except thank you for being patient with us.

Thanks EJ.
Stan

How is your wife ?   

How are you ?

This discussion has simply said - both sides have Bible versions they love.

Both sides want respect for their Bible versions.

Neither side is wanting to be forced to change .

I think the discussion is not surving any further purpose. 

Do you see any further purpose to debating this topic ?   If so please tell me and the rest of us. 

I hope your wife and you have more peaceful times together,  put aside the stress of this debate and make her's and your time together as happy as is possible.

None of us can change what any translator did or did not do.   We have our todays, use those as best can be done.

Ed

Thanks so much Ed for thinking of my wife. I will say more later on the prayer thread. But God has been so good in sustaining us through some very difficult times recently. There have been crises with caregivers, and an exacerbation of her severe depression and anger.

I spent some time this afternoon at the ocean and just watched and listened as the waves hit the surf. I watched a beautiful sunset over the Pacific ocean. My music ipod was playing "How Great Thou Art", performed in a most reverent manner by George Beverly Shea, (Still alive and singing for the Lord at the age of 102).

I thought about how God is really Sovereign over all and control of everything, He controls the ocean waves, and He controls every aspect of my life as well as everyone else's life. He is in control of all our discussions on this forum.

I think this discussion is beneficial. I have learned a lot from the challenges of all of you.

I am interested in getting all the facts on the table. That is why I posted a link where one can watch all the videos on this topic by Walter Veith. I have also posted links to the best of conservative scholarship both within the SDA church as from without.

I hope the spirit of this discussion has been positive. I haven't seen any name calling or vitriol, that we once experienced on here. I thank God for everyone on this forum, and the prayers extended for my wife.

Soli Deo Gloria (To God alone be the Glory)

Stan
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: newbie on March 29, 2011, 09:21:50 AM
For myself, I have spent over six years comparing version with version and scripture with scripture.  And I still do so.  I've never leaned upon the studies and teachings of men where they make the claims that such-and-such transcript came from here and this Bible version came from there.  All my decisions are based upon "precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, there a little."  This makes all translations fend for themselves and prove themselves for what they really are.  If you want God to teach you which "Word" is truth, then you have to spend time in the "Word" and only use the information of the "experts" as places to explore, the "experts" can't be the authoritative voice for God's written "Word".  You have to learn this on your own comparing scripture with scripture.
This is powerful EJ....  it is an on going study.  I also have 1611 KJV and it reads wonderfully.  SOP says that God has protected His bible and I do believe that. 
I noticed just recently a subtle change from KJV to NKJV of the omission of an 's' that makes all the difference in the world as to the meaning of the text.
I hope everyone continues to read and to compare, prayer,  and to study... to know truth. 
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: Larry Lyons on April 04, 2011, 10:12:44 AM
Topic split from Word of God Changed to Assurance of Salvation. New topic is on The Cross board.
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: Ed Sutton on April 09, 2011, 06:42:16 AM
One of the helpful absolutes to be remembered when studying the Bible.

Quote
The word of God is rich in precious gems of truth. It contains everything to make a man perfect, and those who do the will of God shall know of the doctrine. The Bible will not be understood in all its bearings by any single mind; it is a mine of truth that can never be exhausted. One man, guided by the Spirit that indited the word, will discern mysteries that baffle another, and the latter will be lead to see beauty and harmony where before there had been perplexity, and perhaps doubt.  {BEcho, August 26, 1895 par. 4}

     There are many who walk in darkness, with the word, the light, the truth, in their hands. They have false ideas of God; therefore they do not seek Him in the right way. They are not in a position to discern spiritual things. They cannot without a conversion appreciate the difference between the human and the divine; and they place a larger estimate upon the human, because it accords with their own natural hearts.  {BEcho, August 26, 1895 par. 5}
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: Alpendave on September 23, 2012, 10:51:30 PM
Stan, it doesn't matter how many "experts" you come up with who defend the new translations. Many of the descrepancies that diminish improtant Christian doctrines have been laid aout for all to see. There are just too many to ignore. I doubt that many of those who defend the new translations have actually made or the seen verse by verse comparisons. If the stream is poluted, the water will not be pure. The manuscripts, the Alexandrian and Siniaticus in particular, used to prepare the Greek Text from which the translators worked cannot be trusted.  Being older does not make them better.

!. The earlier manuscripts used cannot be trusted and shouldn't be accepted because of their source. Reasons for this were posted earlier.

2. A verse by verse comparison between NIV (and other translations) and KJV demonstrates significant problems with the NIV (and others) relating to important Christian teachings. Agatha posted some of these earlier.

 3. Westcott and Hort, two of the principle preparers of the Greek text from which the translators worked were involved in spiritualism and the occult, and did not believe in some of the Key Christian doctrines, especially concerning Christ and the Triune God. In their personal letters, they admitted that their intention in their work of preparing the Greek text, was to secretly make subtle changes in Christian doctrine. These men were not trustworthy and were not  spiritually qualified, to engage in any work having to do with Holy Scripture.

Those are the key issues.




Some of Westcott's Heresies (http://www.westcotthort.com/jmay/deityofChrist.html)

The maintenance of the supreme Sovereignty of One God (monarchia) in this tri-personality has to be guarded against a twofold tendency to error: (1) towards a distinction in essence between God and Christ (the Father and the Son); and (2) towards a confusion of the Persons of the Father and the Son and the Spirit. The first error found its typical expression in Arianism: the second in Sabellianism. The first has affinities with Polytheism by introducing the idea of a subordinate Divinity. The second has affinities with Pantheism, as seeing in things transitory manifestations of the Person of God. Both rest upon a false Neo-Judaic conception of Monotheism, (Westcott, The Epistles of St. John, p. 220).

The absolute, eternal, immanent relations of the Persons of the Godhead furnish the basis for revelation. Because the Word was personally distinct from
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: Alpendave on September 23, 2012, 10:51:49 PM

I didn't have the patience to go through a whole lot of the "adulterated" texts that Agatha pointed out because the ones I did look through pretty much had the same phenomena: In reading the passages that the texts were lifted from, the supposedly missing parts were still there in the passage. The KJV just stated them redundantly within the passage.

If the Alexandrian codices were part of some grand conspiracy to corrupt the Bible, it was hands down one of the most incompetently carried out conspiracies in the history of the world. The Codices were compilations of the different books of the Bible, which would have meant that they would have had to exercise care to completely eliminate/adulterate any and all references to any doctrine they wanted to conceal. The fact is that the truths of the Bible are entirely intact.

True, there was regional gnostic influence that the area was known for and some of the early church fathers had to deal with it. Even though the Alexandrian codices do not support gnostic doctrine, the temptation would have been there for well-meaning scribes to embellish the texts for the sake of clarity. These scribes "had in some instances changed the words, thinking that they were making it more plain, when in reality they were mystifying that which was plain, by causing it to lean to their established views, which were governed by tradition." It is very unlikely that, for the sake of clarification, the scribes would have deliberately deleted portions of the text. Attempts at clarification would have rather resulted in conflation. The embellishments common to the Majority Texts are a much more plausible example of these attempts to clarify the textual meaning.

It was common for the writers of the NT to quote scripture without indicating where the quote begins and where it ends. If early church fathers did the same thing and included their own clarifying insertions within what they quoted often enough, it would be easy for a scribe, reading and copying the fathers works to assume that such insertions were part of the original and include it as part of the text they were copying. The fact is, conflation, especially without the convenience of a printing press, is extraordinarily likely, if not altogether unavoidable.

Some in this thread mentioned the ability of God to perfectly preserve His word. Of His ability, there is no doubt. But through the centuries, He has chosen to allow His word to bear the marks of human weakness. As idealistic as we may want to be about it, there simply is no evidence whatsoever that God has interposed to ensure that His word has been handed down in some errorless version. Those who attack the critical texts are grossly ignorant as to what textual criticism involves and the scientific rigor that is exercised to extract as nearly as possible the original wording of the text.
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: Raven on September 24, 2012, 03:06:48 AM
I'm not sure what your point is, Alpendave.  Are you saying that we can't be sure of truth because of errors in the Bible?

Here is a statement from Ellen White that should disabuse anyone of that notion:  "I saw that God had especially guarded the Bible; yet when copies of it were few, learned men had in some instances changed the words, thinking that they were making it more plain, when in reality they were mystifying that which was plain, by causing it to lean to their established views, which were governed by tradition. But I saw that the Word of God, as a whole, is a perfect chain, one portion linking into and explaining another. True seekers for truth need not err; for not only is the Word of God plain and simple in declaring the way of life, but the Holy Spirit is given as a guide in understanding the way to life therein revealed."  EW 220, 221
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: newbie on September 24, 2012, 07:25:56 AM
I'm not sure what your point is, Alpendave.  Are you saying that we can't be sure of truth because of errors in the Bible?

Here is a statement from Ellen White that should disabuse anyone of that notion:  "I saw that God had especially guarded the Bible; yet when copies of it were few, learned men had in some instances changed the words, thinking that they were making it more plain, when in reality they were mystifying that which was plain, by causing it to lean to their established views, which were governed by tradition. But I saw that the Word of God, as a whole, is a perfect chain, one portion linking into and explaining another. True seekers for truth need not err; for not only is the Word of God plain and simple in declaring the way of life, but the Holy Spirit is given as a guide in understanding the way to life therein revealed."  EW 220, 221

this is what I believe....  there are two lines where the bibles come from...  the Waldenses protected [God] the purest form of the bible that we know. 
there may be a word here or there that is off but as a whole 99% can be trusted
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: Alpendave on September 24, 2012, 09:06:42 AM
That quote from Sister White explains a lot. She is stating exactly what happened with the Byzantine line of texts when copies were few. The scribes, for the sake of clarity, conflated the text, thus the departure of the older Alexandrian type readings.

As for the Waldensian Bible: Here is an informative article (http://www.kjvonly.org/doug/kutilek_waldensian.htm) on its affinity to Jerome's Vulgate.

And another link regarding The Peshitta (http://www.kjv-only.com/peshitta.html), which KJV advocates often sight as evidence of its accuracy.
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: Larry Lyons on September 24, 2012, 02:15:58 PM
I don't know about you, Alpendave, but I suspect that most of us do not have the background or the resources to do textual criticism for ourselves, but I have read enough and heard enough to decide what I trust the most and what I am more cautious about. I have quite a number of translations and will often consult with NASB and others in trying to clarify certain passages that can be difficult. But there is no doubt that when looking at  verse by verse comparisons I am very wary of accepting the translation of a verse in a modern version that differs from the meaning of a verse in the KJV in even a subtle way that suggests a doctrinal variation.

I have the Peshitta Bible translated to English from the Aramaic by George M. Lamsa. It is word for word KJV in most of it, but as I read it through over the last few months I did find some problems. I didn't make a list, but I tried to mark verses and words that I thought were questionable. As I read through it my suspicion was that Lamsa consulted the KJV as he did his work of translation, and used what he felt was the best rendering.  
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: newbie on September 24, 2012, 04:00:04 PM
as a rule of thumb I do not use any bible that takes Jesus out of the text
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: Alpendave on September 24, 2012, 04:24:06 PM
as a rule of thumb I do not use any bible that takes Jesus out of the text

Better switch from the KJV then (http://www.kjv-only.com/jesusnew.html)
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: Larry Lyons on September 24, 2012, 10:55:26 PM
One more thing about the Lamsa translation of the Peshitta Bible; it is very close to the King James Bible but he uses very little of the Old English words and spellings, such as Thee and thou. The Peshitta is very readable compared to the KJV.
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: newbie on September 25, 2012, 08:31:52 PM
Better switch from the KJV then (http://www.kjv-only.com/jesusnew.html)

maybe I should have clarified.... some bibles have removed valuable verses like Act. 8:37 and Matt 18:11 where both of these tell of Jesus...
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: restoretruth on September 25, 2012, 10:41:26 PM

As for the Waldensian Bible: Here is an informative article (http://www.kjvonly.org/doug/kutilek_waldensian.htm) on its affinity to Jerome's Vulgate.


The article you linked to is so blatantly anti-SDA that I didn't finished reading it!  I stayed away from the discussion on the KJV  last year because I didn't see it as an issue
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: restoretruth on September 26, 2012, 12:03:26 PM
Here is one of several links to BJ Wikinson's book.

<http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCIQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.present-truth.org%2F6-Library%2FAuthorized%2520Bible-all.pdf&ei=DEljUPyXDeGWiAK8g4G4Aw&usg=AFQjCNE6PcYBjYOsWakpsYVWRzHJY9EE6A&sig2=YsnGEiEnfPWuDw4t3btVsw (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCIQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.present-truth.org%2F6-Library%2FAuthorized%2520Bible-all.pdf&ei=DEljUPyXDeGWiAK8g4G4Aw&usg=AFQjCNE6PcYBjYOsWakpsYVWRzHJY9EE6A&sig2=YsnGEiEnfPWuDw4t3btVsw) >

Here is a link to a copy of a talk by David Otis Fuller D.D. (A Baptist theologian 1903-1988) plus some excerpts:

< http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/dr_fuller-versions.htm (http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/dr_fuller-versions.htm)  >

A Position Paper on the Versions of the Bible
By David Otis Fuller, D.D.

If you had written the King James Version and you had written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, Zechariah 13:6, "What are these wounds in thine hands?...Those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends." I feel sure everyone present as well as multitudes of other Christians all thru the centuries have believed those words refer to our lovely Lord in prophetic preview of His sufferings for us. Do you know how the Living Bible translates or paraphrases that? "What are these scars on your chest? Those are the scars I received when I was in brawl with my friend." That, in my book, is blasphemy, and I would look Ken Taylor in the eye if he were present and charge him with that. In the KJV Psalm 22:16 reads "they pierced my hands and my feet." The New English Bible has it "they hacked off my hands and my feet." Tell me friend of mine, how would you feel if men took such blasphemous liberties with your translation? The next obvious question you have already anticipated I can easily imagine: "How does Almighty God feel?"
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: Leila on September 27, 2012, 07:43:57 AM
Quote
These followers of Peter Waldo...


Actually, the Waldenses were not followers of Peter Waldo.  Ironically, the truth concerning this comes from Benjamin Wilkinson himself in his book, Our Authorized Bible Vindicated.  He states:

There are modern writers who attempt to fix the beginning of the Waldenses from Peter Waldo, who began his work about 1175. This is a mistake. The historical name of this people as properly derived from the valleys where they lived, is Vaudois. Their enemies, however, ever sought to date their origin from Waldo. Waldo was an agent, evidently raised up of God to combat the errors of Rome. Gilly, who made extensive research concerning the Waldenses, pictures Waldo in his study at Lyon, France, with associates, a committee, "like the translators of our own Authorized Version."f35 Nevertheless the history of the Waldenses, or Vaudois, begins centuries before the days of Waldo.

There remains to us in the ancient Waldensian language, "The Noble Lesson" (La Nobla Leycon), written about the year 1100 A.D., which assigns the first opposition of the Waldenses to the Church of Rome to the days of Constantine the Great, when Sylvester was Pope. This may be gathered from the following extract:

"All the Popes, which have been from Sylvester to the present time." (Que tuit li papa, que foron de Silvestre en tro en aquest.)f36

Thus when Christianity, emerging from the long persecutions of pagan Rome, was raised to imperial favor by the Emperor Constantine, the Italic Church in northern Italy later the Waldenses is seen standing in opposition to papal Rome. Their Bible was of the family of the renowned Itala. It was that translation into Latin which represents the Received Text. Its very name "Itala" is derived from the Italic district, the regions of the Vaudois. Of the purity and reliability of this version, Augustine, speaking of different Latin Bibles (about 400 A.D.) says:

"Now among translations themselves the Italian (Itala) is to be preferred to the others, for it keeps closer to the words without prejudice to clearness of expression."f37

The old Waldensian liturgy which they used in their services down through the centuries contained "texts of Scripture of the ancient Version called the Italick."f38

The Reformers held that the Waldensian Church was formed about 120 A.D., from which date on, they passed down from father to son the teachings they received from the apostles.f39


Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: Larry Lyons on September 27, 2012, 08:39:39 AM


Actually, the Waldenses were not followers of Peter Waldo.  Ironically, the truth concerning this comes from Benjamin Wilkinson himself in his book, Our Authorized Bible Vindicated.  He states:

There are modern writers who attempt to fix the beginning of the Waldenses from Peter Waldo, who began his work about 1175. This is a mistake. The historical name of this people as properly derived from the valleys where they lived, is Vaudois. Their enemies, however, ever sought to date their origin from Waldo. Waldo was an agent, evidently raised up of God to combat the errors of Rome. Gilly, who made extensive research concerning the Waldenses, pictures Waldo in his study at Lyon, France, with associates, a committee, "like the translators of our own Authorized Version."f35 Nevertheless the history of the Waldenses, or Vaudois, begins centuries before the days of Waldo.

There remains to us in the ancient Waldensian language, "The Noble Lesson" (La Nobla Leycon), written about the year 1100 A.D., which assigns the first opposition of the Waldenses to the Church of Rome to the days of Constantine the Great, when Sylvester was Pope. This may be gathered from the following extract:

"All the Popes, which have been from Sylvester to the present time." (Que tuit li papa, que foron de Silvestre en tro en aquest.)f36

Thus when Christianity, emerging from the long persecutions of pagan Rome, was raised to imperial favor by the Emperor Constantine, the Italic Church in northern Italy later the Waldenses is seen standing in opposition to papal Rome. Their Bible was of the family of the renowned Itala. It was that translation into Latin which represents the Received Text. Its very name "Itala" is derived from the Italic district, the regions of the Vaudois. Of the purity and reliability of this version, Augustine, speaking of different Latin Bibles (about 400 A.D.) says:

"Now among translations themselves the Italian (Itala) is to be preferred to the others, for it keeps closer to the words without prejudice to clearness of expression."f37

The old Waldensian liturgy which they used in their services down through the centuries contained "texts of Scripture of the ancient Version called the Italick."f38

The Reformers held that the Waldensian Church was formed about 120 A.D., from which date on, they passed down from father to son the teachings they received from the apostles.f39



Thank you Leila. Good information. Welcome to the forum!! I look forward to your further participation.

Larry
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: restoretruth on September 27, 2012, 09:14:06 AM


Actually, the Waldenses were not followers of Peter Waldo.  Ironically, the truth concerning this comes from Benjamin Wilkinson himself in his book, Our Authorized Bible Vindicated.  He states:

There are modern writers who attempt to fix the beginning of the Waldenses from Peter Waldo, who began his work about 1175. This is a mistake. The historical name of this people as properly derived from the valleys where they lived, is Vaudois. Their enemies, however, ever sought to date their origin from Waldo. Waldo was an agent, evidently raised up of God to combat the errors of Rome. Gilly, who made extensive research concerning the Waldenses, pictures Waldo in his study at Lyon, France, with associates, a committee, "like the translators of our own Authorized Version."f35 Nevertheless the history of the Waldenses, or Vaudois, begins centuries before the days of Waldo.

There remains to us in the ancient Waldensian language, "The Noble Lesson" (La Nobla Leycon), written about the year 1100 A.D., which assigns the first opposition of the Waldenses to the Church of Rome to the days of Constantine the Great, when Sylvester was Pope. This may be gathered from the following extract:

"All the Popes, which have been from Sylvester to the present time." (Que tuit li papa, que foron de Silvestre en tro en aquest.)f36

Thus when Christianity, emerging from the long persecutions of pagan Rome, was raised to imperial favor by the Emperor Constantine, the Italic Church in northern Italy later the Waldenses is seen standing in opposition to papal Rome. Their Bible was of the family of the renowned Itala. It was that translation into Latin which represents the Received Text. Its very name "Itala" is derived from the Italic district, the regions of the Vaudois. Of the purity and reliability of this version, Augustine, speaking of different Latin Bibles (about 400 A.D.) says:

"Now among translations themselves the Italian (Itala) is to be preferred to the others, for it keeps closer to the words without prejudice to clearness of expression."f37

The old Waldensian liturgy which they used in their services down through the centuries contained "texts of Scripture of the ancient Version called the Italick."f38

The Reformers held that the Waldensian Church was formed about 120 A.D., from which date on, they passed down from father to son the teachings they received from the apostles.f39



Welcome to the forum, Leila!

Yes, the history of the Vaudois (later called Waldensies) can be traced back almost to the the time when John, the Revelator was still alive! The history of the Bible, & of God's faithful people is both fascinating & inspiring!  We are glad to see a renewed interest in this topic!
Please continue to contribute!
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: Alpendave on September 27, 2012, 11:29:08 PM
Some of that could be true. However, there are reasons to doubt Wilkinson's scholarly competence (and even integrity perhaps) in light of some of his statements in OABV which tend to mislead:

Wilkinson's statements about Westcott and Hort's Mariolotry (http://www.westcotthort.com/quotes_mary.html)

If the misrepresentation of these statements (as Wilkinson uses them in his book) is indicative of the rest, one need not read the book to know it is not worth the paper that it is printed on.

BTW, I am former SDA-KJV-only. Now I am an SDA that uses a few different translations, including the NKJV, for study. And I think the world of the KJV. I just don't think there are any grounds for taking a KJV-trumps-all point of view. Sister White certainly didn't have that view. In condemning the RV/ARV, Wilkinson casts no insignificant amount of indirect criticism on Sister White, who freely used those versions. I am interested in Sister White quotes where she warns of apostasy in those versions and why she still chose to use them in books such as The Great Controversy.
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: Soli Deo Gloria on September 28, 2012, 09:33:06 AM
Some of that could be true. However, there are reasons to doubt Wilkinson's scholarly competence (and even integrity perhaps) in light of some of his statements in OABV which tend to mislead:

Wilkinson's statements about Westcott and Hort's Mariolotry (http://www.westcotthort.com/quotes_mary.html)

If the misrepresentation of these statements (as Wilkinson uses them in his book) is indicative of the rest, one need not read the book to know it is not worth the paper that it is printed on.

BTW, I am former SDA-KJV-only. Now I am an SDA that uses a few different translations, including the NKJV, for study. And I think the world of the KJV. I just don't think there are any grounds for taking a KJV-trumps-all point of view. Sister White certainly didn't have that view. In condemning the RV/ARV, Wilkinson casts no insignificant amount of indirect criticism on Sister White, who freely used those versions. I am
interested in Sister White quotes where she warns of apostasy in those versions and why she still chose to use them in books such as The Great Controversy.

Excellent points Dave. Westcott and Hort were not perfect but to grossly misrepresent their views to hold up a view of KJV only is morally reprehensible.

The KJV is not near as strong in some areas as the NIV or ESV in upholding the Deity of Christ or the SDA view of the state of dead.

One can play the game all day of pitting one version against another with "my verse is better than your verse"

In the end, the KJV or the NIV or ESV will lead souls to a saving knowledge of our Lord Jesus. All the arguing over this does not bear good fruit.

Stan
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: Ed Sutton on September 28, 2012, 02:51:54 PM

How did EGW feel about the Bible?

"our Bible*" = 86 hits  
 
Quote
  Correct Understanding Vital.--A correct understanding of "what saith the Scriptures" in regard to the state of the dead is essential for this time. God's Word declares that the dead know not anything, their hatred and love have alike perished. We must come to the sure word of prophecy for our authority. Unless we are intelligent in the Scriptures, may we not, when this mighty miracle-working power of Satan is manifested in our world, be deceived and call it the workings of God; for the Word of God declares that, if it were possible, the very elect should be deceived. Unless we are rooted and grounded in the truth, we shall be swept away by Satan's delusive snares. We must cling to our Bibles. If Satan can make you believe that there are things in the Word of God that are not inspired, he will then be prepared to ensnare your soul. We shall have no assurance, no certainty, at the very time we need to know what is truth.-- Review and Herald, Dec. 18, 1888.  {Ev 249.2}    

Quote
 Study the Word of God. Commit its precious promises to memory so that, when we shall be deprived of our Bibles, we may still be in possession of the Word of God.--10MR 298 (1909).  {LDE 67.6}  

Quote
 The Christian evidence that we need, is found not in the experience of men, but in our Bibles. The Word of God is the man of our counsel; for it brings us down from age to age, bearing its testimony to the unchangeableness of the truth. Not one of the ancient defenses of the word of God, appropriate for special times, has become worn out. No part of the Bible has died from old age. All the past history of the people of God is to be studied by us today, that we may benefit by the experiences recorded.  {ML 25.2}  

     Men break their word, and prove themselves untrustworthy, but God changes not. His word will abide the same forever.  {ML 25.3}  

     Give the Word its honored position as a guide in the home. Let it be regarded as the Counsellor in every difficulty, the standard of every practice. . . . There can never be true prosperity to any soul in the family circle unless the truth of God, the wisdom of righteousness, presides.  {ML 25.4}  

     We all need a guide through the many straight places of life, as much as the sailor needs a pilot over the sandy bar or up the rocky river. . . .  {ML 25.5}  

     The sailor who has in his possession chart and compass, and yet neglects to use them, is responsible for placing the lives of those on board his vessel in peril. The vessel may be lost by his neglect. We have a Guidebook, the Word of God, and we are inexcusable if we miss the way to heaven, for plain directions have been given us.  {ML 25.6}
 
     The Bible presents a perfect standard of character; it is an infallible guide under all circumstances, even to the end of the journey of life.  {ML 25.7}  

Chap. 1 - The Inspiration of the Prophetic Writers  {1SM 15.1  -  23.1}  is a good place to start, before debating,  about the Bible .    If seeds of doubt get sown that would otherwise not be there, speakers ( posters )  may be held responsible for the later crop.    We are all just very little people handling a very big subject. 
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: restoretruth on September 28, 2012, 10:48:49 PM
Some of that could be true. However, there are reasons to doubt Wilkinson's scholarly competence (and even integrity perhaps) in light of some of his statements in OABV which tend to mislead:

Wilkinson's statements about Westcott and Hort's Mariolotry (http://www.westcotthort.com/quotes_mary.html)

If the misrepresentation of these statements (as Wilkinson uses them in his book) is indicative of the rest, one need not read the book to know it is not worth the paper that it is printed on.

BTW, I am former SDA-KJV-only. Now I am an SDA that uses a few different translations, including the NKJV, for study. And I think the world of the KJV. I just don't think there are any grounds for taking a KJV-trumps-all point of view. Sister White certainly didn't have that view. In condemning the RV/ARV, Wilkinson casts no insignificant amount of indirect criticism on Sister White, who freely used those versions. I am interested in Sister White quotes where she warns of apostasy in those versions and why she still chose to use them in books such as The Great Controversy.

RE WESTCOT & HORT

Doe anyone have information that the quotations below are not true?

Occult Involvement

Westcott and Hort founded several occult societies, two of which were The Hermes Club and The Ghostly Guild. These were not merely school-boy projects. They were created at one of the highest learning institutions in the world's largest imperial world-power at that time - Great Britian. Members of these clubs and the occult associations that they went on to found, such as The Society for Psychical Research started the modern New Age movement, became and were prominent members of British Royalty and politics, as well as occupied the highest positions in the Anglican Church including that which is equilavent to that of the Pope in the RCC, the Archbishop of Canterbury. To say that Westcott and Hort were well connected is an understatement.

Doing searches on some of the names, organizations and movements listed in the essay below are real eye-openers if you really want to know what was going on with the occult movement in the latter half of the 1800's and the connection that Wescott and Hort had to it.

The book, New Age Bible Versions has this to say about Wescott and Hort:

B.F. Westcott is identified as "a mystic" by the standard reference work of his day: The Encyclopedia Britannica (1911). Princeton University Press' book, The Christian Socialist Revival (1968, Peter d'A Jones) says B.F. Westcott was "a mystic" (p. 179). The highly respected Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics identifies both B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort as Alexandrian mystics (see 'Alexandrian Theology' et al.). The Occult Illustrated Dictionary makes reference to B.F. Westcott, Hort, and Lightfoot and their 'ghostly' games.

In a letter to his wife, 23 Oct 1864, Hort wrote (then age 36) :

"We had a pleasant evening, six of Westcott's Sixth Form boys dining with us .... Then we worked till near dinner, when we had a very nice little party, the two De Morgans, H. M. Butler, Farrar, Brady and his mother, and H. W. Watson. Mrs. Brady ... came in the evening. We tried to turn tables, but the creatures wouldn't stir. Both the De Morgans were radiant and pleasant."   

The phrase "we tried to turn tables" is a direct reference to an occult seance and "the creatures" that "wouldn't stir" is a clear reference to the spirits that Hort and his guests were invoking to establish communication. Apparently Westcott and Hort were accomplished practicers of seances.  

The sometimes promoted idea that these occult activities were only a part of Hort's younger days, is refuted by numerous quotes in New Age Bible Versions. Says that source ,"He speaks, as late as 1880 (age 55), about "fellowship with the spiritual world" and "the dominion which the dead have over us" (p. 439).

These statements are immediately prior to the publishing of his totally new Alexandrian New Testament Greek Text of 1881.  


Additional note:

1861: Apr. 12th - Hort to Westcott: "Also - but this may be cowardice - I have a sort of craving that our text should be cast upon the world before we deal with matters likely to brand us with suspicion. I mean, a text, issued by men already known for what will undoubtedly be treated as dangerous heresy, will have great difficulties in finding its way to regions which it might otherwise hope to reach, and whence it would not be easily banished by subsequent alarms." (Life, Vol.I, p.445).


< http://wordfamine.com/Westcott_and_Hort.html  (http://wordfamine.com/Westcott_and_Hort.html)>
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: Soli Deo Gloria on September 29, 2012, 12:27:35 AM
Restore,
Earlier on this thread I went into careful documentation to show that those quotes above are inaccurate and out of context about W and H.

The book you quoted from above called "New age Bible versions" has been thoroughly discredited by most conservative Bible scholars such as James White, as well as the SDA Biblical Research Institute.

Some of the statements above from that book are outright lies. The documentation for this is very thorough.

The KJV only folks will stop at nothing to make their points.

Does anyone believe that the reading of the NIV will lead someone to hell?

I just don't understand why the KJV folks are so militant.

Stan
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: Larry Lyons on September 29, 2012, 08:34:26 AM
Restore,
Earlier on this thread I went into careful documentation to show that those quotes above are inaccurate and out of context about W and H.

The book you quoted from above called "New age Bible versions" has been thoroughly discredited by most conservative Bible scholars such as James White, as well as the SDA Biblical Research Institute.

Some of the statements above from that book are outright lies. The documentation for this is very thorough.

The KJV only folks will stop at nothing to make their points.

Does anyone believe that the reading of the NIV will lead someone to hell?

I just don't understand why the KJV folks are so militant.

Stan
Stan, the book New Age Bible Versions was written many decades after James White died. Also the men at the BRI are not inspired and as Restoretruth said, they are on the wrong side of this one. Regardless of what you might think of Gail Riplinger, the side by side comparisons which are provided in her book  prove there are many verses in the modern versions that differ from KJV in ways that are doctrinally inconsistent with biblical Christian beliefs. That is especially true of the NIV, That is not to say you will go to hell if you use the NIV, But you should really take a look at the evidence before you continue to discount Riplinger and her book.

I can understand the attacks on her. It is an expensive undertaking to produce a new translation of the Bible and the publishers expect a good return on their investment. Bibles are big sellers and a popular new translation must be very lucrative.  Riplinger's book is a threat to their profits.
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: Soli Deo Gloria on September 29, 2012, 09:42:25 AM
Stan, the book New Age Bible Versions was written many decades after James White died. Also the men at the BRI are not inspired and as Restoretruth said, they are on the wrong side of this one. Regardless of what you might think of Gail Riplinger, the side by side comparisons which are provided in her book which  prove there are many verses in the modern versions that differ from KJV in ways that are doctrinally inconsistent with biblical Christian beliefs. That is especially true of the NIV, That is not to say you will go to hell if you use the NIV, But you should really take a look at the evidence before you continue to discount Riplinger and her book.

I can understand the attacks on her. It is an expensive undertaking to produce a new translation of the Bible and the publishers expect a good return on their investment. Bibles are a big seller and a popular new translation must be very lucrative.  Riplinger's book is a threat to their profits.

Sorry Larry
Here is the James White scholarly review of Gail Riplingers work. White has no financial interest in the NIV.
( a different James White)  :-)

http://vintage.aomin.org/NABVR.html

Please study the evidence in here for blatant bearing of false witness by Riplinger.

To say that her book has any credibility at all is to just want to disregard the facts.

Show us where you believe White is misrepresenting Riplinger.

Stan

Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: restoretruth on September 29, 2012, 02:19:45 PM
Sorry Larry
Here is the James White scholarly review of Gail Riplingers work. White has no financial interest in the NIV.
( a different James White)  :-)

http://vintage.aomin.org/NABVR.html

Please study the evidence in here for blatant bearing of false witness by Riplinger.

To say that her book has any credibility at all is to just want to disregard the facts.

Show us where you believe White is misrepresenting Riplinger.

Stan


Hi Stan,

There are strong feelings on both sides of this issue.  As I have said before, I never paid much attention to this issue in the past & only really started to study it after the last time the discussion of it was banned for a while on this forum because it became so heated.  I hope that doesn't happen again because my wife & I have been doing a lot of study on this subject & would like others input on it!  We just want to know what the truth is!  We find it very interesting that portions of the New Testament (Mathew) were actually written in Hebrew. Also, there are some who believe that the Peshitta may not be a translation but may have been written in the original language. It is possible that Hebrew & Aramaic were even more common than Greek. In Acts 21:40 & 22:2  Paul quieted the people by speaking to them in the Hebrew tongue.It is apparent that not all the NT books were written in the same language. We may not ever know the answers to these questions.  

In regards to the original manuscripts we know that Alexandria in Egypt was the seat of apostasy in the early church. The Vaticanus and Sinaiticus  are of the family of manuscripts chosen by Constantine & the Bishop of Rome & used by Jerome as the basis of the Latin Vulgate. These manuscripts came out of Alexandria, Egypt & were limited to a very few. Constantine  commisioned Eusebius to produce fifty  copies to be distributed to various churches. These were produced on Vellum (Antelope skin) & very expensive.  Also, they were much more durable than parchment.  It is believed by many that the Sinaiatic & Vaticanus are two of these copies that partially survived. These are the same family of manuscripts on which Westcott & Hort based  their Greek Text  
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: Soli Deo Gloria on September 29, 2012, 10:23:22 PM
Restore
The charges and counter-charges keep coming.

I posted on this extensively earlier in this thread.

Frankly, I am weary of this topic and won't comment more. All I can say is that I have been blessed mightily in my walk with God by both the KJV and the NIV. The Holy Spirit testifies to me the authenticity off the Word of God.

To ascribe conspiratorial motives to the scholars behind the NIV is not helpful.

If Christians would only study the Bible carefully rather than argue about it, we would all be better off.

More time needs to be devoted to study as well as living out Christ's greatest commandment to love one another as Christ loved us.

May God bless us all as we endeavor to study His Word.

Soli Deo Gloria
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: Larry Lyons on September 29, 2012, 11:06:47 PM
Restore, the article by Gail Riplinger you posted is very convincing in that she makes side by side comparisons of what her detractors wrote with what she actually wrote. She effectively highlighted the deficiencies in their scholarship and the apparent deliberate attempts to malign her character and her expertise. There efforts to defend the modern versions leads one to question their objectivity and credentials as Bible scholars and especially as textual critics. She is certainly a colorful writer.  :-)

I more than ever tend to think that the hostility towards Riplinger's book is due to its threat to the profits of the publishers of the newer translations. This reminds me of the efforts that the pharmaceutical companies make to not only discredit any physician or scientist who expresses concerns about the safety of a new drug that appears on the market but to ruin their careers.  In the case of the researcher in the UK who noticed evidence of vaccine components in blood samples of autistic children, he wrote an article in the credible medical journal, Lancet,which resulted in an all out effort by the drug companies to ruin him professionally. He was finally vindicated in a court of law. His Lancet article didn't even say that there was a connection between Vaccines and autism, but simply presented the evidence as something of interest that needed further study.
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: Alpendave on September 30, 2012, 08:13:10 AM
Saying that Sister White had special inspiration that led her to only select very specific texts from the RV/ARV is quite a cop-out for dealing with the fact that she really had no warnings against translations that relied on Westcott and Hort's greek text. Her main concern, in fact, was that using the RV/ARV from the pulpit would confuse some of the older generation who would wonder why the text was different than what they had in their KJV Bibles. In other words, she was well aware of the differences and chose to stick with the KJV for practical reasons, more than theological. The opposition to modern versions expressed in this thread has no basis in concerns Sister White herself had over the modern versions.

"Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness; that the man of God may be complete, furnished completely unto every good work.
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: Larry Lyons on September 30, 2012, 09:29:55 AM
Saying that Sister White had special inspiration that led her to only select very specific texts from the RV/ARV is quite a cop-out for dealing with the fact that she really had no warnings against translations that relied on Westcott and Hort's greek text. Her main concern, in fact, was that using the RV/ARV from the pulpit would confuse some of the older generation who would wonder why the text was different than what they had in their KJV Bibles. In other words, she was well aware of the differences and chose to stick with the KJV for practical reasons, more than theological. The opposition to modern versions expressed in this thread has no basis in concerns Sister White herself had over the modern versions.

"Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness; that the man of God may be complete, furnished completely unto every good work.
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: restoretruth on September 30, 2012, 11:35:05 AM

More time needs to be devoted to study as well as living out Christ's greatest commandment to love one another as Christ loved us.

May God bless us all as we endeavor to study His Word.

Soli Deo Gloria

How true!  That should be the focus of our religion! I guess the key is, can we discuss hot topics & still be cool about it & kind to each other?

We have a relative that accepted the Ford theology years ago. We are in continual contact via email. He is very anti SDA & EGW & not a bit relunctant to share his views!  He constantly puts down the KJV & tells us that the NIV is the only Bible to be trusted! This is one of the reasons we have for getting deeper into this subject.

Tell me honestly Stan (or anyone else with information on this), does the NIV support Calvinistic theology more than the KJV?  I do not know the answer to that question yet, but I would like to know your opinion as a Bible student.  Do the divisions over Calvinist theology in the Christian church have anything to do with the wide divisions in the Christian world over the different streams of manuscripts?


Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: restoretruth on September 30, 2012, 11:55:11 AM
Restore, the article by Gail Riplinger you posted is very convincing in that she makes side by side comparisons of what her detractors wrote with what she actually wrote. She effectively highlighted the deficiencies in their scholarship and the apparent deliberate attempts to malign her character and her expertise. There efforts to defend the modern versions leads one to question their objectivity and credentials as Bible scholars and especially as textual critics. She is certainly a colorful writer.  :-)

I more than ever tend to think that the hostility towards Riplinger's book is due to its threat to the profits of the publishers of the newer translations. This reminds me of the efforts that the pharmaceutical companies make to not only discredit any physician or scientist who expresses concerns about the safety of a new drug that appears on the market but to ruin their careers.  In the case of the researcher in the UK who noticed evidence of vaccine components in blood samples of autistic children, he wrote an article in the credible medical journal, Lancet,which resulted in an all out effort by the drug companies to ruin him professionally. He was finally vindicated in a court of law. His Lancet article didn't even say that there was a connection between Vaccines and autism, but simply presented the evidence as something of interest that needed further study.

Gail Riplinger has impressive credentials & seems well qualified to research & write on this subject. I suspect that much of the opposition is based on one's theology although the publisher certainly has an interest. Perhaps the question to seriously consider is:  What is the "fruit" resulting from the Westcott/Hort Greek Text?  That prooves more to me than anything that it is derived from a likely corrupt source.
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: restoretruth on September 30, 2012, 12:24:12 PM
Saying that Sister White had special inspiration that led her to only select very specific texts from the RV/ARV is quite a cop-out for dealing with the fact that she really had no warnings against translations that relied on Westcott and Hort's greek text. Her main concern, in fact, was that using the RV/ARV from the pulpit would confuse some of the older generation who would wonder why the text was different than what they had in their KJV Bibles. In other words, she was well aware of the differences and chose to stick with the KJV for practical reasons, more than theological. The opposition to modern versions expressed in this thread has no basis in concerns Sister White herself had over the modern versions.

"Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness; that the man of God may be complete, furnished completely unto every good work.
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: Alpendave on September 30, 2012, 12:24:34 PM
Quote
   The doctrines of hell and heaven are also under attack in the new perversions of the English Bible.  The word
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: restoretruth on September 30, 2012, 08:55:17 PM
CALVINISM'S INFLUENCE OVER THE NIV

I really wasn't aware of this connection until today after I posted the comment questioning if there was a Calvinistic influence on the translation of the NIV.  Just shows how uninformed I was on this subject!  I just found this article on the web & thought I would post part of it. The bolding & the coloring are mine. Excerpts from:

The New International Version's Translation Of Sarax  
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: Soli Deo Gloria on September 30, 2012, 11:33:14 PM
How true!  That should be the focus of our religion! I guess the key is, can we discuss hot topics & still be cool about it & kind to each other?

We have a relative that accepted the Ford theology years ago. We are in continual contact via email. He is very anti SDA & EGW & not a bit relunctant to share his views!  He constantly puts down the KJV & tells us that the NIV is the only Bible to be trusted! This is one of the reasons we have for getting deeper into this subject.

Tell me honestly Stan (or anyone else with information on this), does the NIV support Calvinistic theology more than the KJV?  I do not know the answer to that question yet, but I would like to know your opinion as a Bible student.  Do the divisions over Calvinist theology in the Christian church have anything to do with the wide divisions in the Christian world over the different streams of manuscripts?




Restore
That is a great question.
There is no appreciable difference in the KJV vs NIV in the teachings of  reformers such as Calvin or Luther who both taught predestination.
Calvin used the manuscripts based on KJV.

John Bunyan and Charles Spurgeon, both Calvinists used the KJV text.

It is true that the Roman Catholic scholar Erasmus was the primary scholar behind the KJV. And Erasmus vigorously fought Luther over predestination in the classic work by Luther called "Bondage of the Will".

How ironic that the argument over all of this controversy comes down to a Roman Catholic Erasmus, who was the primary scholar behind the KJV text, and the Anglicans, Westcott and Hort.

It looks like that the majority on here want to put their money on the Roman Catholic version KJV.  :-)

Stan
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: Soli Deo Gloria on September 30, 2012, 11:41:15 PM
From Hilltop Baptist News Report (http://hilltopbaptistnewport.net/DoctrinalIssuesInTheNewBibleVersions.html#HEAVEN_AND_HELL). Evidently, the new versions undermine the doctrine of eternal torment.

Dave,
We owe the KJV a debt of gratitude (with the help of Erasmus, the primary Roman Catholic scholar behind the text), the terrible doctrine that a God of love and perfect justice would torture his creatures eternally in a literal fire. The KJV is very strong on this.

The ESV which is supposedly based on a corrupt text is very clear that sinners will become extinct in the final judgment.

Stan
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: Raven on October 01, 2012, 03:00:32 AM
Let me get this straight; you're saying that the KJV promotes eternal hell fire?  Only if select verses are taken out of context.  When Scripture is compared with Scripture it becomes clear that the wicked are destroyed, not eternally tormented.
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: Ed Sutton on October 01, 2012, 05:01:50 AM
As a non SDA child I heard the grownups talking about a new Bible version coming out or had recently come out, it was the work of Vatican 2, it was to unite Jew, Gentile, Pentecostal, and Catholic.  There was a great deal of concern among the grownups then. This Bible was to help undo all of Protestantism and reclaim all to return to Catholism.

Perhaps some one else would do their homework and recover documentation of this and post it, opinions are easy to argue about, documented history is less so.
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: Soli Deo Gloria on October 01, 2012, 09:11:59 AM
Let me get this straight; you're saying that the KJV promotes eternal hell fire?  Only if select verses are taken out of context.  When Scripture is compared with Scripture it becomes clear that the wicked are destroyed, not eternally tormented.

This is the testimony from a Baptist paper promoting eternal torment

    The doctrines of hell and heaven are also under attack in the new perversions of the English Bible.  The word
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: Soli Deo Gloria on October 01, 2012, 09:16:39 AM
The fact is that the KJV has a lot of inaccuracies with regard to words for hell.

Every time Jesus talked about hell, it was from the word literally Gehenna, which was the eternally burning garbage pit outside of Jerusalem.

So Catholicism and Fundamentalism took this analogy to mean that the final judgment would be an eternally burning fire pit where the worm does not die.

Stan
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: newbie on October 01, 2012, 01:25:01 PM
The fact is that the KJV has a lot of inaccuracies with regard to words for hell.

Every time Jesus talked about hell, it was from the word literally Gehenna, which was the eternally burning garbage pit outside of Jerusalem.

So Catholicism and Fundamentalism took this analogy to mean that the final judgment would be an eternally burning fire pit where the worm does not die.

Stan
It may have a few but I don't think a lot would be accurate for something that God has protected over the ages and EGW used 95% of the time in her writings.
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: Larry Lyons on October 01, 2012, 03:12:06 PM
This is the testimony from a Baptist paper promoting eternal torment

    The doctrines of hell and heaven are also under attack in the new perversions of the English Bible.  The word
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: Soli Deo Gloria on October 01, 2012, 10:54:45 PM
Stan, the Baptist paper is simply claiming that the KJV supports their doctrines. They have always claimed that their doctrines come from the Bible. They even quote the Bible to justify Sunday keeping and once saved always saved. As Raven indicated, it is easy to prove from the KJV, that the dead do not go straignt to hell and burn forever. The Baptists, like all of the rest of the Sunday churches teach doctrines that cannot be supported by Scripture yet they claim otherwise. So I wouldn't take seriously what the article says about the KJV supporting an ever burning hell.  

Erasmus was a Roman Catholic because he was born in 1466, was poor, was an orphan and had no options but to join a monastary. He eventually produced a edition of the New Testament in original Greek and his own Latin translation in which he made 600 corrections of errors in Jerome's Vulgate.
   Erasmus was a Catholic, but his attitude towards the Scriptures and his desire of making it possible for everyone to read them was closer to the attitude and intentions of Wycliffe, Luther and the others than the Catholic hierarchy.


Actually Luther and Erasmus fought against each other.

Read "Bondage of the Will" where Luther and Erasmus fought tooth and nail.
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: Larry Lyons on October 01, 2012, 11:21:14 PM
Actually Luther and Erasmus fought against each other.

Read "Bondage of the Will" where Luther and Erasmus fought tooth and nail.
Yes, I know. They fought about doctrine if I recall correctly, but I didn't claim they were best pals.  :-)
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: Soli Deo Gloria on October 01, 2012, 11:57:47 PM
Yes, I know. They fought about doctrine if I recall correctly, but I didn't claim they were best pals.  :-)

 :-)
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: Richard OFfill on October 02, 2012, 08:28:34 AM


Sometimes I have wondered if we have taken into account that there are hundreds of translations of the Bible in other languages. For instance in English....In my Father's house are many "mansions".   In Spanish.........en la casa de mi Padre hay "muchas moradas" (many dwelling places).  In French   "dans la maison de mon p
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: Larry Lyons on October 02, 2012, 09:35:20 AM

Sometimes I have wondered if we have taken into account that there are hundreds of translations of the Bible in other languages. For instance in English....In my Father's house are many "mansions".   In Spanish.........en la casa de mi Padre hay "muchas moradas" (many dwelling places).  In French   "dans la maison de mon p
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: Richard OFfill on October 02, 2012, 04:23:35 PM


I remember how I felt when it began that God was referred to as you and now thou. Then there are the prayers of the little children...........

Jesus made the point clear that worship is to be in Spirit and in Truth. Many have the attitude that it is 'my way or the highway.' It would be interesting to discuss the meaning of 'vain repetitions'
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: Raven on October 02, 2012, 05:10:34 PM
Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that it is only in English that there are dozens of translations of the Bible.  There are about two in French (my Louis Segond version reads very much like the KJV).  I've asked my Spanish speaking friends and they say the same thing; there are only a few translations in Spanish.  The sinister, conspiratorial side of me suggests that this is by design.  If enough English translations can be produced, with a wide variation in meaning, it will cause confusion.  One could reason that if there can be that much variety in translations, who can really know what the original really said?  Therefore the doctrines we derive from the Bible cannot set in stone, so we mustn't be too dogmatic in our beliefs.  Since the USA, an English speaking country, will be a major player in end time events, it stands to reason that the devil would try to create as much confusion as possible in that part of the world.  Just a thought.
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: Larry Lyons on October 02, 2012, 08:33:02 PM
Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that it is only in English that there are dozens of translations of the Bible.  There are about two in French (my Louis Segond version reads very much like the KJV).  I've asked my Spanish speaking friends and they say the same thing; there are only a few translations in Spanish.  The sinister, conspiratorial side of me suggests that this is by design.  If enough English translations can be produced, with a wide variation in meaning, it will cause confusion.  One could reason that if there can be that much variety in translations, who can really know what the original really said?  Therefore the doctrines we derive from the Bible cannot set in stone, so we mustn't be too dogmatic in our beliefs.  Since the USA, an English speaking country, will be a major player in end time events, it stands to reason that the devil would try to create as much confusion as possible in that part of the world.  Just a thought.
Raven, that sounds like what Satan would try to do. Its a miracle that the Bible has survived in any language. But since English is the main international language now, it has probably  become increasingly easier, for missionaries from America to work in many parts of the world. I am surprised that in many different countries, even in small obscure places there are people who speak English.
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: Alpendave on October 03, 2012, 03:12:27 AM
French and Spanish speaking cultures are still overwhelmingly Catholic, which would have more influence on their paucity of translations in their languages. The multitude of vernacular translations came about through the influence of the reformers.

I'm still interested in some Ellen White quotes where she warns people about the heretical influence of Westcott, Hort, and the English and American Revisions Committees. So far, all I've been able to find is a quote from W. C. White regarding her perspective on the English Revision:

Quote
"Before the revised version was published, there leaked out from the committee, statements regarding changes which they intended to make. Some of these I brought to Mother's attention, and she gave me very surprising information regarding these Scriptures. This led me to believe that the revision, when it came to hand, would be a matter of great service to us." W. C. White, DF 579 (1931); Ministry, April, 1947, p. 17.

I hate to come across as a little sarcastic, but really, where are Sister White's warnings specifically about Westcott, Hort, and the revision committees? Where does she mention the dangers of the Alexandrian Texts? It would not seem reasonable that Willie would have alerted his mother to merely the minor differences between the two texts. He would have expressed concern over those texts that showed a real difference. In fact, she gave him "very surprising information regarding these scriptures." And what was the result of this very surprising information? It led W. C. White to "believe that the revision, when it came to hand, would be a matter of great service to [them]."

At any rate, I need to start focusing on my school now and probably won't spend much time here. But do yourselves a favor and don't look at the new versions (at least the literal translations) as something they are not -- dangerous sources of heresy. They are an opportunity to discover deeper meaning into what we believe as Adventists. At least that has been my experience.

The KJV is based on conflated text type. Is that bad? No, not really when one considers some of the circumstances those manuscripts were produced under. Take harmonization for example. If one only had the Gospel of Mark, it could be helpful to have it harmonized with Matthew so that you had, in a limited way, the benefit of both gospels. The differences are not due to some Catholic conspiracy (the Vaticanus was originally in Orthodox hands and the monastery where the Sinaiticus was found is also Orthodox) where the text was trimmed down to eradicate unfavorable doctrines. If it was, it was a horribly incompetent job in light of the fact that what was cut out of Luke is fully intact in Matthew -- and the examples could go on, and on, and on, and on...

Another point I'd like to make. KJV-onliers like to demonstrate the corrupt nature of the Alexandrian Text Types by pointing out that the Pericope Adulterae is not contained therein. In a move that equates to having one's cake and eating it two, they will try to vindicate the KJV by touting its affinity with the Peshitta. Never mind the fact that the Pericope Adulterae is one of a number of passages where the omission of which in the Peshitta is in agreement with the critical texts and in disagreement with the TR. But, as pointed out by the ABRI, the story is certainly valid and probably made its way from oral tradition into the written word
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: Soli Deo Gloria on October 03, 2012, 10:45:07 AM
Great post Dave.

I fully agree.

I would suggest that one read the book of John in the NIV or ESV and then compare with the KJV.

Any objective analysis at all would not find any doctrinal differences.

I just don't understand what all the fuss is about.
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: Larry Lyons on October 03, 2012, 11:04:56 AM
Dave, where did you get the idea that Ellen White had anything to say about Westcott and Hort and the revision committee? Have you heard claims that she did?
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: Alpendave on October 03, 2012, 04:45:28 PM
Dave, where did you get the idea that Ellen White had anything to say about Westcott and Hort and the revision committee? Have you heard claims that she did?

Larry, you just made my point. By taking issue with the modern versions on the basis that they are the product of the work of "occultists" and are tainted wit highly objectionable heresy is to fly in the face of Sister White's inspired example. It is evident that she was aware of the differences between the text, and yet without giving any word of caution as to there use, she employed them in such prominent books as "The Great Controversy" and "The Desire of Ages." In objecting to their use as authoritative versions of God's word, you hurl criticism on Sister White herself.
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: Raven on October 03, 2012, 05:30:24 PM
Great post Dave.

I fully agree.

I would suggest that one read the book of John in the NIV or ESV and then compare with the KJV.

Any objective analysis at all would not find any doctrinal differences.

I just don't understand what all the fuss is about.

One major objection is the removal, by the NIV, of a number of texts.  Another objection is the loss of the poetic style present in the kJV or the NKJV.  Trying to memorize from the NIV is like trying to memorize from the newspaper.  And, although I don't have the time or the inclination to go into depth, I've read enough and heard enough to disagree with your contention that there is no doctrinal difference between them.  Some of it is subtle, but that's how the devil works, of course.
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: Larry Lyons on October 03, 2012, 05:52:54 PM
Larry, you just made my point. By taking issue with the modern versions on the basis that they are the product of the work of "occultists" and are tainted wit highly objectionable heresy is to fly in the face of Sister White's inspired example. It is evident that she was aware of the differences between the text, and yet without giving any word of caution as to there use, she employed them in such prominent books as "The Great Controversy" and "The Desire of Ages." In objecting to their use as authoritative versions of God's word, you hurl criticism on Sister White herself.
Dave, to my knowledge, there were very few new translations, and they were certainly not a burning issue in Ellen White's day. There is no evidence that God revealed anything about the new translations to her. There are many things that God never revealed to her and which she did not write or speak about. The fact that "occultists" were involved in preparing the Greek Text is not the basis of the objections to the modern translations. The basis for the objections is that there are a huge number of  variations and exclusions in them that were apparently derived from the Westcott and Hort text that when looked at as a whole, tend to be problematic in terms of basic Christian beliefs. If there were no variations and exclusions, Westcott and Hort's interest in the occult would hardly be noted.
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: Alpendave on October 03, 2012, 07:59:17 PM
Larry,

The sparse number of English Translations in Sister White's day is irrelevant to the point you are trying to make -- because when pinned down, KJV-advocates nearly always bring the argument back to the two main lines of Greek Text. It is indisputable that Sister White made significant usage of translations based on the critical text. The fact that Willie brought to her attention the differences (logically, he only would have pointed out those that were notably different -- the ones KJV-onlyists object to) and she informed him (gave him very surprising information on) about the new translations, which means that she knew more about them than you are trying to suggest by saying that there are some things God did not reveal to her.

As for Westcott and Horts "occultist" tendencies, those who point them out routinely lift the condemning quotes out of their context, which when included paint a very different portrait of them. Reading Westcott's quotes pertaining to Mariolotry in their context has only revealed that it is people like Riplinger who are the dishonest ones.
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: Larry Lyons on October 03, 2012, 08:34:34 PM
Larry,

The sparse number of English Translations in Sister White's day is irrelevant to the point you are trying to make -- because when pinned down, KJV-advocates nearly always bring the argument back to the two main lines of Greek Text. It is indisputable that Sister White made significant usage of translations based on the critical text. The fact that Willie brought to her attention the differences (logically, he only would have pointed out those that were notably different -- the ones KJV-onlyists object to) and she informed him (gave him very surprising information on) about the new translations, which means that she knew more about them than you are trying to suggest by saying that there are some things God did not reveal to her.

As for Westcott and Horts "occultist" tendencies, those who point them out routinely lift the condemning quotes out of their context, which when included paint a very different portrait of them. Reading Westcott's quotes pertaining to Mariolotry in their context has only revealed that it is people like Riplinger who are the dishonest ones.
Dave, did you read the articles that Restoretruth posted? It appears they were known even in their in their day as occultists.  However, that is irrelevant to the problem with the modern translations, as I pointed out earlier.

I strongly urge you to read the articles that Restoretruth has posted earlier on this thread concerning Westcott and Hort and Gail Riplinger.

In relation to Ellen White and the RSV, I am not sure what point you are trying to make. As far as I know she was never involved in any discussion about the two lines of texts. As I said before, it was not a burning issue in her day. There had not been a flood of modern translations based on the work of Westcott and Hort's Greek text. It is not a big deal that Ellen White quoted verses from the RSV. It means nothing in relation to the texts. If she had a message from God concerning this she would have said so. The fact that she didn't is no evidence either for or against either line of text.

Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: restoretruth on October 03, 2012, 09:32:27 PM
Quote from Alpendave

"The KJV is based on conflated text type. Is that bad? No, not really when one considers some of the circumstances those manuscripts were produced under. Take harmonization for example. If one only had the Gospel of Mark, it could be helpful to have it harmonized with Matthew so that you had, in a limited way, the benefit of both gospels. The differences are not due to some Catholic conspiracy (the Vaticanus was originally in Orthodox hands and the monastery where the Sinaiticus was found is also Orthodox) where the text was trimmed down to eradicate unfavorable doctrines. If it was, it was a horribly incompetent job in light of the fact that what was cut out of Luke is fully intact in Matthew -- and the examples could go on, and on, and on, and on..."
________________________

REGARDING CONFLATES

This is taken from
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: Soli Deo Gloria on October 04, 2012, 10:22:51 AM
One major objection is the removal, by the NIV, of a number of texts.  Another objection is the loss of the poetic style present in the kJV or the NKJV.  Trying to memorize from the NIV is like trying to memorize from the newspaper.  And, although I don't have the time or the inclination to go into depth, I've read enough and heard enough to disagree with your contention that there is no doctrinal difference between them.  Some of it is subtle, but that's how the devil works, of course.

Raven
Have you read the whole NT in the NIV?

I did memorize the entire book of Galatians from the NIV about 26 years ago. Not as bad as you say.

Someone just give one example where the NIV has any significant deviation from Christian doctrine essential for salvation.

The implication of some of the KJV only advocates is that Satan inspired the NIV

I know that Satan doesn't want anyone reading the NIV.

No one has given any evidence to support such claims  of demonic inspiration.
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: Larry Lyons on October 04, 2012, 11:45:03 AM
Stan, I don't think anyone claims that a person cannot be saved by reading the NIV. In fact your good friend Walter Veith  :-) was converted from atheism using the NIV, and he does not tell people to get rid of their modern translations. However there are certainly variances that are problematic in terms of Christian doctrine. I John 5:7,8 is one.

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

(7) For there are three that testify,
8 The Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement (NIV)



Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: Alpendave on October 04, 2012, 04:40:21 PM
Quote from: D.B. Wallace
The extant Greek manuscripts--the primary witnesses to the text of the New Testament--do not include the Byzantine text in the first four centuries. But what about the early versions and the church fathers? Do they attest to the Byzantine texttype in the early period?

Many of the versions were translated from Greek at an early date. Most scholars believe that the New Testament was translated into Latin in the second century A.D. 33 --two centuries before Jerome produced the Vulgate. Almost one hundred extant Latin manuscripts represent this Old Latin translation--and they all attest to the Western texttype. In other words the Greek manuscripts they translated were not Byzantine. The Coptic version also goes back to an early date, probably the second century 34 --and it was a translation of Alexandrian manuscripts, not Byzantine ones. The earliest forms of the Syriac are also either Western or Alexandrian. 35

What is the oldest version, then, that is based on the majority text? In a carefully documented study, Metzger points out that the Gothic version is "the oldest representative of the . . . Antiochian [i.e., Byzantine] type of text." 36 When was this version produced? At the end of the fourth century.

The significance of these early versions is twofold: 37 (1) None of the versions produced in the first three centuries was based on the Byzantine text. But if the majority text view is right, then each one of these versions was based on polluted Greek manuscripts--a suggestion that does not augur well for God's providential care of the New Testament text, as that care is understood by the majority text view. 38 But if these versions were based on polluted manuscripts, one would expect them to have come from (and be used in) only one isolated region. This is not the case; the Coptic, Ethiopic, Latin, and Syriac versions came from all over the Mediterranean region. In none of these locales was the Byzantine text apparently used. This is strong evidence that the Byzantine text simply did not exist in the first three centuries--anywhere. 39 (2) Even if one of these early versions had been based on the majority text, this would only prove that the majority text existed before the fourth century. But it would not prove that it was in the majority before the fourth century. 40

Early patristic writers are especially valuable in textual criticism because it can be determined when and where they lived. Many of them lived much earlier than the date of any Greek manuscripts now extant for a particular book. Some lived in the first or early second century. If it could be determined what kind of text they used when they quoted from the New Testament, such information would naturally be highly valuable. But textual critics do not usually give much weight to the church fathers. There are several reasons for this, some of which are as follows. First, when a church father quotes from the New Testament, it is not always possible to tell if he is quoting from memory or if he has a manuscript in front of him. Second, he rarely tells which book he is quoting from. He might say, "as it is written," or "just as Paul says," or "our Lord said." Third, none of the original documents of any church fathers remains. Almost all the copies of these early patristic writers come from the Middle Ages. In other words textual criticism must be done on the church fathers in order to see how they attest to the New Testament text.
continued next post.

Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: Alpendave on October 04, 2012, 04:40:36 PM
Quote
This last problem is significant because the Byzantine text was the majority text after the ninth century. And virtually all the copies of the fathers come from the ninth century or later. When a scribe was copying the New Testament text quoted by a church father, he would naturally conform that text to the one with which he was familiar. 41 This fact has been recognized for the past 80 years. In 1912, Frederic G. Kenyon, a British textual critic, wrote, "Without any prejudice against the received text [i.e., the Byzantine text], it must be recognized that, where two alternatives are open, the one which diverges from the received text is more likely to be the one originally used by the Father in question." 42

This introduction to patristic use of Scripture is necessary to underscore the following two points. (1) Older studies, which were based on late copies of the church fathers and on uncritical editions, are not helpful in determining what the church fathers said. And it is precisely these older studies that the majority text advocates appeal to. 43 (2) So far as this writer is aware, in the last 80 years every critical study has concluded that the majority text was never the text used by the church fathers in the first three centuries. Fee, who is recognized as one of the leading patristic authorities today, wrote:

Over the past eight years I have been collecting the Greek patristic evidence for Luke and John for the International Greek New Testament Project. In all of this material I have found one invariable: a good critical edition of a father's text, or the discovery of early MSS, always moves the father's text of the NT away from the TR and closer to the text of our modern critical editions.
The Majority Text and the Original: Are they identical (http://bible.org/article/majority-text-and-original-text-are-they-identical)

Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: Soli Deo Gloria on October 04, 2012, 08:03:06 PM
Stan, I don't think anyone claims that a person cannot be saved by reading the NIV. In fact your good friend Walter Veith  :-) was converted from atheism using the NIV, and he does not tell people to get rid of their modern translations. However there are certainly variances that are problematic in terms of Christian doctrine. I John 5:7,8 is one.

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

(7) For there are three that testify,
8 The Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement (NIV)




Larry
That passage has been in dispute by good conservative scholars. There is evidence that it was added by a scribe.

But the doctrine of the Trinity doesn't depend on that one text.

I can also show you evidence where the NIV is actually stronger on the deity of Christ.
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: newbie on October 05, 2012, 07:56:25 AM

Larry
That passage has been in dispute by good conservative scholars. There is evidence that it was added by a scribe.

But the doctrine of the Trinity doesn't depend on that one text.

I can also show you evidence where the NIV is actually stronger on the deity of Christ.


This was to Larry and excuse me for partaking...  but, the only reason that people defend the NIV is because they use it.  Tell me that you do not use this bible.
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: Alpendave on October 05, 2012, 10:56:55 AM
This was to Larry and excuse me for partaking...  but, the only reason that people defend the NIV is because they use it.  Tell me that you do not use this bible.

The same can be said for the KJV. The problem (on both sides of the issue) is that people have invested a large portion of their egos into the issue, which then becomes a quest for self-validation. I was a KJV-only for years and made pretty much just about every pro-KJV argument that has been presented in this thread. Deep down, I really struggled with the fact that Sister White used the RV/ARV as much as she did. My starting premise was that Benjamin Wilkinson was correct by virtue of the fact that he was an Adventist. As for the SDA commentary? Just another example of apostasy in our church.

After some years of convincing myself against rationality and even more so, The Holy Spirit, my stance on the issue mellowed over time until today, I have a much more eclectic usage of translations (though I prefer the NASB and NKJV).

Interestingly, the Andrews University Press has plans (if not already undertaken) to produce another study Bible using the NIV.

Also, I would like to point out a major difference in the rendering of a particular text:

NASB Hebrews 4:9
So there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God.

KJV Hebrews 4:9
There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God.

If the difference were the other way around, SDA KJV-only advocates would argue that the NASB is undermining the doctrine of the Sabbath. In fact, it would be one of the most prominent arguments against the modern versions.
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: Soli Deo Gloria on October 05, 2012, 12:21:56 PM
This was to Larry and excuse me for partaking...  but, the only reason that people defend the NIV is because they use it.  Tell me that you do not use this bible.

Newbie,
My primary version that I believe is the most accurate is the English Standard Version.

I love the KJV and the NIV because both of them have been proven over time not only to be a blessing to me, but many souls have come to Christ using all these versions .

To say that the Devil and New Age influences are behind these versions is not only a lie, but is attributing to Satan a version which leads people to Christ?  A house divided cannot stand. The NIV gives glory to God and upholds the way of the cross that leads us home.
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: Raven on October 05, 2012, 03:49:52 PM
I've never been a "KJV only" person, but I have more confidence in that version than in the modern versions.  It can be very useful to compare versions, but when one version appears to imply that which we know is not in harmony with the rest of Scripture, the warning bells should go off.  The sheer quantity of English versions that have come out in the past 40 or 50 years makes me somewhat suspicious.  They all can't be good translations; and some border on being sacrilegious.  The "Ebonics Bible"? "In da beginnin' Big Daddy created da heaven an' da earth."   :roll:  The "Gender Neutral Bible"?  "For God so loved the world that God gave God
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: Alpendave on October 06, 2012, 09:22:50 AM
Found this interesting quote from Gail Riplinger while reading James White's response to Peter Ruckman (http://vintage.aomin.org/ResponseToRuckman.html)


Quote from: Gail Riplinger
The former has the genitive eudokios [sic], while the latter has the nominative eudokia. Watch out for the letter 's'-sin, Satan, Sodom, Saul (had to be changed to Paul). The added 's' here is the hiss of the serpent. . . . In their passion to give space to Satan's sermon, they follow four corrupt fourth and fifth century MSS while ignoring a total of 53 ancient witnesses including 16 belonging to the second, third and fourth centuries and 37 from the fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth centuries.

Watch out for the letter "S". I'd say watch out for anyone insane enough to make such an argument.
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: Raven on October 06, 2012, 11:13:49 AM
Found this interesting quote from Gail Riplinger while reading James White's response to Peter Ruckman (http://vintage.aomin.org/ResponseToRuckman.html)


Watch out for the letter "S". I'd say watch out for anyone insane enough to make such an argument.

I have to say that is a strange statement to make, and not having read the book, I wouldn't want to comment more other than to say that the original languages didn't read "sin," "Satan," or "Saul," but rather the Hebrew or Greek equivalents.  What about "Saviour?"  Is there a problem with that word, as well?  :roll:
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: Soli Deo Gloria on October 06, 2012, 01:06:33 PM
I have to say that is a strange statement to make, and not having read the book, I wouldn't want to comment more other than to say that the original languages didn't read "sin," "Satan," or "Saul," but rather the Hebrew or Greek equivalents.  What about "Saviour?"  Is there a problem with that word, as well?  :roll:

But see, Dave just showed a good example of why Riplinger is not a Bible scholar but rather a paranoid  personality.

It is really sad that this lady would be given any credibility in this discussion.
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: Larry Lyons on October 06, 2012, 05:55:18 PM
Did anyone read Riplinger's reply to one of her critics that Restoretruth posted?  She may be a colorful writer, but she has the credentials, the experience and is well able to defend herself against the  attacks that have been made against her.

We have had extensive discussion on the topic in the past that did not result in understanding or agreement, or anyone changing their position. We had to lock the previous thread on this topic when things became angry and personal. Lets keep things on a Christ-like level. I have a bit of a problem with the use of ridicule towards anyone. I doubt if we can come up with any new arguments. We have been through it all before. I personally have no interest one way or the other what version of the Bible
anyone prefers. As I said before, I have read and heard enough to decide what I am most comfortable with. There is plenty of material available for anyone who feels a burden to do their own investigation.
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: Larry Lyons on October 06, 2012, 06:37:15 PM
But see, Dave just showed a good example of why Riplinger is not a Bible scholar but rather a paranoid  personality.

It is really sad that this lady would be given any credibility in this discussion.
I would say that based on the scanty evidence for your diagnosis, doctor, she would not fit the DSM IV Revised, (or whatever the current diagnostic manual is) to meet the criteria for paranoid personality.  :-) But even if she did, (which we don't know), that would not necessarily discount her work as a Bible scholar or a textual critic. If fact it may enhance her work as a researcher and textual critic.
BTW Stan, isn't your field internal medicine?  :-)

But I do have a problem with the use of ridicule. That is leading us in a downhill path.
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: restoretruth on October 06, 2012, 06:59:42 PM
Did anyone read Riplinger's reply to one of her critics that Restoretruth posted?  She may be a colorful writer, but she has the credentials, the experience and is well able to defend herself against the  attacks that have been made against her.

We have had extensive discussion on the topic in the past that did not result in understanding or agreement, or anyone changing their position. We had to lock the previous thread on this topic when things became angry and personal. Lets keep things on a Christ-like level. I have a bit of a problem with the use of ridicule towards anyone. I doubt if we can come up with any new arguments. We have been through it all before. I personally have no interest one way or the other what version of the Bible
Larry,

I have been doing a lot of study on this topic & hope no one shuts it down. I feel there is a whole lot more that needs to be said. I agree that we need to keep personalities aside & deal with facts. I am discovering factual information that needs to be shared & that I find very exciting & faith building in the scriptures. I will post something on it soon. I don't believe what I am about to post will inflame anyone's passions. Hey everybody, keep cool! OK? :-)
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: Larry Lyons on October 06, 2012, 09:09:02 PM
Larry,

I have been doing a lot of study on this topic & hope no one shuts it down. I feel there is a whole lot more that needs to be said. I agree that we need to keep personalities aside & deal with facts. I am discovering factual information that needs to be shared & that I find very exciting & faith building in the scriptures. I will post something on it soon. I don't believe what I am about to post will inflame anyone's passions. Hey everybody, keep cool! OK? :-)
Sounds good to me.  :-)
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: Soli Deo Gloria on October 06, 2012, 11:44:02 PM
I would say that based on the scanty evidence for your diagnosis, doctor, she would not fit the DSM IV Revised, (or whatever the current diagnostic manual is) to meet the criteria for paranoid personality.  :-) But even if she did, (which we don't know), that would not necessarily discount her work as a Bible scholar or a textual critic. If fact it may enhance her work as a researcher and textual critic.
BTW Stan, isn't your field internal medicine?  :-)

But I do have a problem with the use of ridicule. That is leading us in a downhill path.

OK Larry
I am not a psychiatrist and was not making that kind of diagnosis.   :-)

It is not about ridiculing. But what do you do when someone makes a ridiculous statement? Raven agreed with Dave and maybe he was a little kinder.

But it is serious when someone claims to be an authority in this area and they make a statement that is nonsensical.
Are we supposed to just say "well that is nice".

What does the letter "s" have to do with the topic? As Raven pointed out, S can also stand for Savior.
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: Alpendave on October 07, 2012, 07:15:41 AM
It is quite possible that Gail Riplinger has misrepresented her credentials (http://avpublications.org/articles/reason-for-exposing-gail-riplinger.pdf) and not been forthright about her divorce history. (http://avpublications.org/articles/gail-riplinger-defends-herself-by-slandering-her-ex-husbands.pdf)

Quote
We combed through the archives at Kent State University and found her in commencement
records and past University bulletins. She has said she was a
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: Ed Sutton on October 07, 2012, 08:58:44 AM
Words are important, especially if they are pivotal to anything the Bible says.  Bible words and language convey truthfully what God impresses into the Bible writers.

An older link shows a linguist explaining to kids to young to read well, using pictures , notice what he explains about language and words.  He even tells about the history of Scripture briefly.

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0S_I9DjbyI  (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0S_I9DjbyI)

If we are willing to do God's will He will cause us to know if what the Bible says is true. While we post and express views about Bible versions we are also expressing attitudes, our posts and reasons for them become part of the Library of Heaven.

Quote
    It is your duty to war against oppressive thoughts and melancholy feelings, just as much as it is your duty to pray. It is your duty to counterwork the agencies of the enemy, to place a firm hold upon the bridle of your tongue as well as your thoughts. Of all the times in your life when you need a supply of grace, it is when the sensitive, inflamed digestive organs are at work and you are worried and tired out.  {2MCP 409.5}  

     You may look surprised at this, but it is a species of swearing to be constantly irritated and irritating others by your faultfinding and gloomy reflections. These fits of indigestion are trying, but hold fast to the bridle that you will not swear to those who are your best friends or to those who are your enemies.--Lt 11, 1897.  {2MCP 410.1}    

Quote
 But when a child hears an older person constantly talking about the faults of someone else, he in turn is imbued with the same spirit of faultfinding and criticism. The seeds of contention are being sown. Oh, how can professed Christians indulge in such a work! Two nights before I left my home, I was charged, during the visions of the night, to tell the congregation that I should meet at Oakland on the Sabbath, that the wicked words coming from their lips regarding the supposed faults of God's servants who are doing the very best they can to spread the truth and to advance His work, are all written in the heavenly books of record. Unless those who speak these words repent, they will at last find themselves outside the city of God. God will not allow a quarrelsome person to enter into the heavenly city.  {1SAT 375.2}    

If we chew each other instead of facts & histories, we will walk in darkness, Jesus will not join our online discussions, but we know who will.

part 2 of the link             http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_jLOmzURJk&feature=relmfu   (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_jLOmzURJk&feature=relmfu)
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: Ed Sutton on October 07, 2012, 09:13:35 AM
Quote
  Satan stands at the head of the great army of doubters, and he works to the utmost of his power to beguile souls into his ranks. It is becoming fashionable to doubt. There is a large class by whom the word of God is looked upon with distrust for the same reason as was its Author
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: Alpendave on October 07, 2012, 02:37:56 PM
Ed,

No one here is doubting the word of God. Neither is anyone here nurturing a disposition to criticize. At the very heart of the criticism towards the modern versions is the charge that Westcott and Hort were spiritualists or closet Catholics. Much ad hominum argumentation is leveled against them in an attempt to discredit the modern versions by virtue of their association with the editors of the Critical Greek Text. Examining her outrageous misquotes about Westcott and Hort and comparing them to what they actually said alerts people to the fact that they have been unjustifiably vilified. By pointing out Riplinger's errors, the circle of recycled misquotes and misrepresentations has a better chance of being broken.

Here is a link to some articles (http://www.westcotthort.com/articles.html) dealing with some of the allegations made against them.
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: Larry Lyons on October 07, 2012, 04:34:22 PM
Ed,

No one here is doubting the word of God. Neither is anyone here nurturing a disposition to criticize. At the very heart of the criticism towards the modern versions is the charge that Westcott and Hort were spiritualists or closet Catholics. Much ad hominum argumentation is leveled against them in an attempt to discredit the modern versions by virtue of their association with the editors of the Critical Greek Text. Examining her outrageous misquotes about Westcott and Hort and comparing them to what they actually said alerts people to the fact that they have been unjustifiably vilified. By pointing out Riplinger's errors, the circle of recycled misquotes and misrepresentations has a better chance of being broken.

Here is a link to some articles (http://www.westcotthort.com/articles.html) dealing with some of the allegations made against them.
Alpendave, You are making claims that have already been refuted by articles hat have been posted on this thread. If you don't agree with them that is fine but you have not proven them wrong by again attacking her character as well as ignoring her own defense of her work. You seem to misunderstand the whole problem that some people have with the new translations. The alleged occultism of Westcott and Hort is not and has never been the main issue. The issue is the large number of problematic changes that when taken as a whole tend to diminish the validity of some key Christian doctrines. Many of these have been placed side by side for comparison for anyone to see. As I posted before, if these problematic texts did not exist, the occultism of Westcott and Hort would be of little or no interest to anyone. We have gone over all of this before on previous threads.
The real issue is the manuscripts from which the translators worked. I doubt very much if any of us on this forum have the expertise or the competence in that quite esoteric field. I believe that there may be vested interests among some of the professional scholars who engage in this controversy, so I am skeptical regarding the attacks against the received text. Who gains if certain key Christian doctrines are diminished? Who loses if the Westcott Hort text is discredited? Those questions ought to be considered.
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: Alpendave on October 07, 2012, 10:12:47 PM
Larry,

The fact is the truth is most likely in the balance between the MT and AT. I have no problem with that. The fact that Marks account of an event in the life of Jesus may contain or omit certain details that are (or are not) in the gospels of Matthew and Luke doesn't cause me alarm, thinking that either someone tampered with the text or that what is taught therein is diminished by any omission. Why? It would just be evidence that Matthew, Mark, and Luke were not in cahoots when they compiled their gospel accounts. The differences between them (whether in the MT or AT) are strengths, not weaknesses. Nearly every omission in the AT (not meaning that the omission eliminates part of the original) can be found fully attested to in other texts -- whether another gospel account or, even quite commonly, in the immediate context of the passage.

I will say this, the 1800 differences between the MT and TR are intriguing. It would be fantastic to have a translation that followed the MT in those places -- including, of course the Pericope Adulterae and a few others that, though evidently not part of the original writing, were passed on through oral tradition and included in the text thereafter.
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: Larry Lyons on October 07, 2012, 10:32:17 PM
Larry,

The fact is the truth is most likely in the balance between the MT and AT. I have no problem with that. The fact that Marks account of an event in the life of Jesus may contain or omit certain details that are (or are not) in the gospels of Matthew and Luke doesn't cause me alarm, thinking that either someone tampered with the text or that what is taught therein is diminished by any omission. Why? It would just be evidence that Matthew, Mark, and Luke were not in cahoots when they compiled their gospel accounts. The differences between them (whether in the MT or AT) are strengths, not weaknesses. Nearly every omission in the AT (not meaning that the omission eliminates part of the original) can be found fully attested to in other texts -- whether another gospel account or, even quite commonly, in the immediate context of the passage.

I will say this, the 1800 differences between the MT and TR are intriguing. It would be fantastic to have a translation that followed the MT in those places -- including, of course the Pericope Adulterae and a few others that, though evidently not part of the original writing, were passed on through oral tradition and included in the text thereafter.
Alpendave, I heard one TV preacher recently dismiss the whole argument about Bible versions as "nonsense." "Just read whatever version you have, that is what is important."  I don't think the controversy over translations is unimportant, but It can be a distraction, and the TV guy does have a point. The important thing is to diligently study the Bible and make sure we can give a reason for our faith when the occasion arises.
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: Alpendave on October 08, 2012, 04:37:41 PM
Good point Larry. It is very important with the modern translations to have rigorous objective criteria for selecting one. In fact, there are but a small handful that have any real value as far as study (and for that matter, devotions) goes. I chose the NASB specifically because of its reputation as a predominantly literal translation. All the conservative translations (KJV included) include some degree of dynamic equivalency and include the literal translation in the margins. That is ok with me. At least for me, paraphrases are useless for both study and devotion.
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: Larry Lyons on October 08, 2012, 07:52:14 PM
Good point Larry. It is very important with the modern translations to have rigorous objective criteria for selecting one. In fact, there are but a small handful that have any real value as far as study (and for that matter, devotions) goes. I chose the NASB specifically because of its reputation as a predominantly literal translation. All the conservative translations (KJV included) include some degree of dynamic equivalency and include the literal translation in the margins. That is ok with me. At least for me, paraphrases are useless for both study and devotion.
I use the NASB when I want to get some idea of what an obtuse sentence in the KJV might mean. The problem with a strict literal translation, as I understand it, (I do not know Greek) is that Greek grammar and modern English grammar do not match very well. And some Greek words carry meanings that are not picked up by an English equivalent. I think that is true of some verb tenses. According to accounts of the making of the KJV, during the period of time when English translations were in the making, there was no such thing as standard English. By the time of the KJV, the translation actually served to establish a certain standard for English, but it has had a few hundred years to evolve. Some of Paul's sentences, for example, from a literal reading do not make
sense at all. Sometimes if the clauses are switched around they might make sense, but there is always a chance of missing something that was intended in the original.
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: Larry Lyons on October 09, 2012, 09:25:33 AM
"The matter is quite simple. The Bible is very easy to understand. But we Christians are a bunch of scheming swindlers. We pretend to be unable to understand it because we know very well that the minute we understand we are obliged to act accordingly. Take any words in the New Testament and forget everything except pledging yourself to act accordingly. My ***, you will say, if I do that my whole life will be ruined. Herein lies the real place of Christian scholarship. Christian scholarship is the church's prodigious invention to defend itself against the Bible, to ensure that we can continue to be good Christians without the Bible coming too close. Dreadful it is to fall into the hands of the living God. Yes, it is even dreadful to be alone with the New Testament."

Soren Kierkegaard, 19th century theologian.
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: Alpendave on October 09, 2012, 04:35:34 PM
Kind of like studying the 10 Commandments to find out just what it takes to be good enough. The problem is that the 10 Commandments are a transcript of God's character of INFINITE love. In other words, good enough must be INFINITELY good, which can only occur if we are imputed and imparted with the INFINITE righteousness of Jesus.
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: Larry Lyons on October 09, 2012, 04:55:43 PM
Kind of like studying the 10 Commandments to find out just what it takes to be good enough. The problem is that the 10 Commandments are a transcript of God's character of INFINITE love. In other words, good enough must be INFINITELY good, which can only occur if we are imputed and imparted with the INFINITE righteousness of Jesus.
Yes, that is true. There is no such thing as "Good enough" based on our own merits or works.

Kierlegaard' statement reminds me of a statement attributed to the writer Mark Twain. "I am not concerned about the things in the Bible that I don't understand. What concerns me are the things I do understand.' (Paraphrased)
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: Larry Lyons on November 12, 2012, 08:42:49 PM
I was watching a documentary called "The Making of the King James Bible." One of the professors that was speaking said that during the work of making the KJV there were some political pressure form members of the committee to render a word or a phrase in a certain way according to someone's theological bias. For example, Paul's great passage in Romans 13 uses the word "charity" as the translation for the Greek word "agape" which is translated as "love" elsewhere. The reason was that one of the committee members had a strong Roman Catholic bias and believed that merit gained from works is a significant requirement for salvation. The committee went along with him and used charity instead of love, which is the appropriate translation of agape.

No translation is perfect, but in most cases when there is a significant difference in meaning between the KJV and the newer translations I prefer to stick to the KJV.

This past Sabbath because of someone's absense one of our members was asked at the last minute to read the scripture for the worship service. The Scripture reading was Matthew 17:14-21. As he quickly read through the passage beforehand he noticed there was something wrong. Verse 21 was missing from his Bible. It goes from verse 20 to 22. No verse 21. He was using the NIV. Since it was in the bulletin, I told him to read it and just explain that verse 21 is left out of the NIV.
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: newbie on November 12, 2012, 09:12:55 PM
so far I have only found 2 problems in the KJV translation and corrected those...
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: Larry Lyons on November 12, 2012, 11:27:10 PM
so far I have only found 2 problems in the KJV translation and corrected those...
I would like to see an edition of the KJV done, not necessarily a new translation, but a kind of paraphrase in which the archaic English was put into modern English and some of the sentence structure was re done to make it more readable. In some of Paul's letters a lay person may be forced to take the word of a scholar as to what a verse or a passage means. Often a literal reading of a passage would make no sense at all to someone who reads the New Testament for the first time. One of the problems is that Greek grammar does not coincide with English grammar. Not only that, but English grammar of the Kings James era also does not necessarily match modern English grammar.
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: Raven on November 13, 2012, 03:58:30 AM
I agree, Larry.  It would simplify things for a lot of people.

But only 2 problems with the KJV, Newbie?  I much prefer the KJV, but I can think of more than that.  The use of the word "Easter" for example in the book of Acts, is one that comes to mind.  Or the use of the phrase "God forbid" when the real meaning is more like "may it not be so."  Of course, I suppose it depends on how you define "problem"; mistranslations such as "Easter," or archaic words, such as "conversation" instead of conduct or manner of life.
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: Raven on November 13, 2012, 04:08:04 AM
I was watching a documentary called "The Making of the King James Bible." One of the professors that was speaking said that during the work of making the KJV there were some political pressure form members of the committee to render a word or a phrase in a certain way according to someone's theological bias. For example, Paul's great passage in Romans 13 uses the word "charity" as the translation for the Greek word "agape" which is translated as "love" elsewhere. The reason was that one of the committee members had a strong Roman Catholic bias and believed that merit gained from works is a significant requirement for salvation. The committee went along with him and used charity instead of love, which is the appropriate translation of agape.

No translation is perfect, but in most cases when there is a significant difference in meaning between the KJV and the newer translations I prefer to stick to the KJV.



I believe the SDA Bible Commentary says that the word "charity" had more of the meaning of selfless love when the KJV was produced.  But the Catholic influence may also have been a factor.  Even the word "love" doesn't really get at the true meaning of agape.  The devil has done a good job of gutting the word, so that it is now nearly meaningless in English.  Someone says they love their chainsaw, and then they say they love their wife?  :?  We need to find a better word.
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: Soli Deo Gloria on November 13, 2012, 09:45:34 AM
Folks
There is no perfect translation.

I just don't understand what seems to be a slavish dedication and defense of the KJV.

Earlier in this thread I documented many problems with the KJV.

The NIV is actually doctrinally more correct on the Deity of Christ. There are texts in the KJV that may allow for the Arian position which many early Adventists held.

Yes, Catholicism had a big influence on the KJV, since it was RCC scholar Erasmus who had responsibility  for the text used in KJV
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: Larry Lyons on November 13, 2012, 12:03:46 PM
Folks
There is no perfect translation.

I just don't understand what seems to be a slavish dedication and defense of the KJV.

Earlier in this thread I documented many problems with the KJV.

The NIV is actually doctrinally more correct on the Deity of Christ. There are texts in the KJV that may allow for the Arian position which many early Adventists held.

Yes, Catholicism had a big influence on the KJV, since it was RCC scholar Erasmus who had responsibility  for the text used in KJV
Laying aside the conflicts over the sources of the manuscripts used in the modern translations, none of the modern translations match what has been described as the majestic, elegant, poetic beauty of the KJV. Also, I have heard it said that it is easier to memorize the KJV. The modern versions, including the NIV lose some of the impact the Bible should have, because of the commonplace flavor of the language used. Of course this is particularly true of the paraphrased versions, some of which are dumbed down, and some such as "The Message" move so far away from the actual text that it should not even be taken seriously either as a translation or a paraphrase.

It is likely true that no committee of Bible scholars, are completely free of bias, especially if they are from differing denominations.The problem has been to identify the doctrinal areas that may reflect a bias of the translators rather than the intention of the original writers.

Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: newbie on November 13, 2012, 07:45:46 PM
so far I have only found 2 problems in the KJV translation and corrected those...

here is one:  Chapter 26 of Leviticus

Quote
Lev 26:18  And if ye will not yet for all this hearken unto me, then I will punish you seven times more for your sins.

Lev 26:21  And if ye walk contrary unto me, and will not hearken unto me; I will bring seven times more plagues upon you according to your sins.

Lev 26:24  Then will I also walk contrary unto you, and will punish you yet seven times for your sins.

Lev 26:28  Then I will walk contrary unto you also in fury; and I, even I, will chastise you seven times for your sins.

The word 'times' should have been put in italics as I have done here.  In the Hebrew there is no word for this 'times' in the text.

This has led to confusion.  Some have said that this is a time prophecy by using this word times.  Take the times away and you have no prophecy.  EGW said that the 2300 day prophecy was the longest time prophecy in the bible.  I trust this is true and we are not to look for another longer one.

The verses refer to intensity rather than time.  If you want to put a word in there that means intensity it would be seven 'fold' rather than 7 'times'.



Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: resolute on November 13, 2012, 08:00:06 PM
Folks
There is no perfect translation.

I just don't understand what seems to be a slavish dedication and defense of the KJV.

Earlier in this thread I documented many problems with the KJV.

The NIV is actually doctrinally more correct on the Deity of Christ. There are texts in the KJV that may allow for the Arian position which many early Adventists held.

Yes, Catholicism had a big influence on the KJV, since it was RCC scholar Erasmus who had responsibility  for the text used in KJV

brilliant, just brilliant.... i agree
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: Ed Sutton on November 15, 2012, 03:12:49 PM
Video makes things nicer at times

  http://youtu.be/-k3dRPOvxkA   (http://youtu.be/-k3dRPOvxkA)

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFTX-j5h2oA&feature=related   (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFTX-j5h2oA&feature=related)

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yILckB0kmw4   (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yILckB0kmw4)

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLUUNJ92XsQ    (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLUUNJ92XsQ)

   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_smywC05ys&feature=related   (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_smywC05ys&feature=related)


Plus with all the fuss about Gail Riplinger I wanted to get video of her speaking for her self.  If you check a horse's teeth you first need to go to the horse's mouth and get same said horse to open their lips.

Gail Riplinger      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBGJKkRjLLg&feature=related   (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBGJKkRjLLg&feature=related)
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: Ed Sutton on November 15, 2012, 04:00:12 PM
History of KJV part 2

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnGYT4s01a4&feature=relmfu   (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnGYT4s01a4&feature=relmfu)

History of KJV part 4    ( could not find part 3 )

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2ZU9GBfFKk&feature=relmfu  (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2ZU9GBfFKk&feature=relmfu)

Story of the KJV parts 1-4

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9X_NeFacdI    (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9X_NeFacdI)

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HeRLlZZ5A0A    (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HeRLlZZ5A0A)

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPWoE6-M7PE   (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPWoE6-M7PE)

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUX4OiQuZCg&feature=relmfu   (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUX4OiQuZCg&feature=relmfu)

If The Roman built versions are so good and the English version so bad, how would the different versions played into the life of Charles Chiniquy ?   What goals were persistantly thrust upon him by his Church, and what conviction was in him from the Bibles he would read ? In later life did he prefer a version ? To test spiritual wolves verses spiritual sheep, good fruit from bad, when both physically look so close alike as to confuse, it is but required to taste each.  A rotten apple by it's taste betrays it's self even if it's skin is unblemished.

 http://pdf.amazingdiscoveries.org/eBooks/FIFTY_YEARS_IN_THE_CHURCH_OF_ROME.pdf     (http://pdf.amazingdiscoveries.org/eBooks/FIFTY_YEARS_IN_THE_CHURCH_OF_ROME.pdf)
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: Alpendave on December 09, 2012, 08:57:47 PM
Article on Charles Chiniquy and the Lincoln Assassination: http://dig.lib.niu.edu/ISHS/ishs-1976feb/ishs-1976feb-017.pdf (http://dig.lib.niu.edu/ISHS/ishs-1976feb/ishs-1976feb-017.pdf)

Quote from Robert Todd Lincold (President Lincoln's son)
Quote
I do not know of any literature
in which my father is quoted as attacking
Catholics and the Catholic Church. Of
course, in the years his name has been a peg
on which to hang many things.
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: newbie on December 09, 2012, 09:02:01 PM
that is a very interesting article....  Hmmm
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: Ed Sutton on April 13, 2013, 04:52:32 AM
5k limit
I thought I had a word processor file in a folder somewhere touching this very subject.

Quote
  4 supposed Errors in the King James Bible Texts - explained

"Errors" in the King James Bible ( Copyright © 1997 James L. Melton
Published by Bible Baptist Church, Sharon, TN ) (bolded underlined - emphasis & added notes given by Ed Sutton showing the S.D.A. position)

Critics of the KJV have a nasty habit of pointing out what they believe to be errors, contradictions, and mistranslations in the Authorized Version. The sad fact is that they usually point these things out to young men and women in Christian colleges who do not know any better. Many young Christians, including young preachers, are having their faith in God's word destroyed by the very people they look to for spiritual guidance !

These so-called "errors" that are presented by such infidels have been explained and written about so many times that it's a shame to even have to mention it again. There isn't enough space in a booklet of this size to embark upon a lengthy rebuttal of such claims. Besides, it has already been done quite well by others. Nevertheless, for the sake of showing the reader the nature of the so-called "errors" in the AV, we will take the time to briefly deal with just a few:

1. According to the critics, the word "Easter" in Acts 12:4 is a mistranslation, because the Greek word is"pascha," and it is translated "passover" twenty-eight times in the New Testament, and it should be translated likewise in Acts 12:4.

This is what happens when a man is so hung up on "the Greek" that he can't read plain English. It should NOT be translated "passover" because the Passover had already passed. The "days of unleavened bread" had already begun (vs. 3), which means the Passover was over (Num. 28:16-18; Exo. 12:13-18). The Passover was always the fourteenth day of the first month, while the days of unleavened bread ran from the fifteenth through the twenty-first. Herod could not have been waiting for the Passover. Besides, why would a Gentile king like Herod be concerned about a Jewish feast day? "Easter" is from the pagan "Ishtar", the goddess that the pagans worshipped--Rome included. Herod wanted to wait until his pagan holiday was over before bringing Peter out to the people.

2. Ist John 5:7-8 is also the subject of much debate. It is argued that the verse lacks manuscript evidence and does not belong in the Bible. Being one of the greatest verses in the Bible on the Trinity, we should be suspicious of any oppositions to it.

The verse should NOT be omitted from the Bible. It is found in Greek manuscript 61, which probably forced Erasmus to include it in his third edition Greek text of 1522.

I John 5:7 is also found in Codex Ravianus, and in the margins of 88 and 629. It is also found in Old Latin manuscripts r and Speculum. It was quoted by Cyprian around A.D. 250, and two Spanish Bishops quoted it in the fourth century (Priscillkian and Idacius Clarus). Several African writers quote it in the fifth century, and Cassiodorus quotes it in the sixth century in Italy. (Ed’s note: the use of I John 5:7 is therefore older than KJV and thus can not be an error of translating into KJV. Not an error at all for it agree’s with other Scripture, and disagrees with no canonized Scripture.) ( Back to the original article.)

The fact that Siniaticus and Vaticanus do not include the verse means nothing to a true Bible believer. After all, Vaticanus omits the entire book of Revelation, while keeping the Apocrypha!
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: Ed Sutton on April 13, 2013, 04:58:18 AM
5 k limit part-2

3. Many argue that the KJV is in error with it's use of the word "devils" instead of "demons". Again, this is due to an over emphasis on "the Greek" as well as a lack of faith in God's ability to preserve His words in English. While protesting that "daimon" should be translated "demon", many have overlooked a great truth which the Holy Spirit has preserved in the King's English. There is one true "Son of God", but many "sons of God". There is one true "Church", the Bride of Christ, but many local "churches". Likewise, there is one "Devil", but many "devils" under his control.
The word "demon" itself does not necessarily imply an evil spirit. Even Webster's 1828 dictionary states that "the ancients believed that there were good and evil demons...", and New Agers of today believe likewise. Therefore, God led the KJV translators to translate "devils" instead of "demons" because every "daimon" in the Bible IS an evil spirit. The word "devil" makes that clear. Every "devil" in the Bible is under the authority of their father "the Devil".

4. Then we have "contradictions" like Exodus 24:10 and John 1:18. Exodus says the Israelites SAW God, while Jesus said in John that "no man hath seen God at any time". Contradiction, right? No, it's only a matter of rightly dividing the word of truth (which you may not be practicing if II Tim. 2:15 has been altered in your "bible"). God is a Trinity, just like you and I. We're a body, a soul, and a spirit (I Ths. 5:23). The Israelites saw a physical manifestation of God, but not the SOUL of God, just as no one has ever seen your soul.

Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: Ed Sutton on April 13, 2013, 04:59:02 AM
5 k limit - conclusion

( Ed’s note: The Baptist Pastor misunderstands the Bible’s doctrine RE soul, therefore The better explanation is these two types of various verses and their connotations. God’s clothes Himself with light as a garment, and it is unapproachable by unholy non immortal beings because that glory always consumes sin. They saw the outer coverings of glory shining through the thick clouds set up by God as a barrier to protect them. They saw as much as sinners can see and live, Moses saw more, as a repentant prophet, but could not be exposed to the glory of God’s face and live in his mortal state. Verses telling about the effect of the glory of God [A.]on sin, and [B.] on sinlessness immortality in Heaven.
[A.]
1. Light as a garment- Psalms 104:2 “Who coverest thyself with light as with a garment......”,

2. no man can approach- 1st Timothy 6:13-16 ¶ “ I give thee charge in the sight of God, who quickeneth all things, and before Christ Jesus, ....
16  Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: ...”.

3. consuming fire - Deuteronomy 4:24  For the LORD thy God is a consuming fire, even a jealous God.
Hebrews 12:29  For our God is a consuming fire.
2nd  Thessalonians 2:8  And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:
Hebrews 1:1-3    1 ¶ “God, ... by his Son, ...Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, ...

4.  RE (no man see My face and live - sinners) Exodus 33:17 - 23 And the LORD said unto Moses, I will do this thing also that thou hast spoken: for thou hast found grace in my sight, and I know thee by name.
18  And he said, I beseech thee, shew me thy glory.
19  And he said, I will make all my goodness pass before thee, and I will proclaim the name of the LORD before thee; and will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will shew mercy on whom I will shew mercy.
20  And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live.
21  And the LORD said, Behold, there is a place by me, and thou shalt stand upon a rock:
22  And it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a clift of the rock, and will cover thee with my hand while I pass by:
23  And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen.

[B.] (redeemed immortal sinless in Heaven) -  see His face - Job 33:26  He shall pray unto God, and he will be favourable unto him: and he shall see his face with joy: for he will render unto man his righteousness.

Revelation 22:1-4
1 ¶  And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb..... the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him.......And they shall see his face; and his name shall be in their foreheads.

blessed see God - Matthew 5:8  Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.

Zephaniah 3:17  The LORD thy God in the midst of thee is mighty; he will save, he will rejoice over thee with joy; he will rest in his love, he will joy over thee with singing. End of Ed’s note.) [size=12point]return to quoting article.

5. Numbers 25:9 says that 24,000 people died in a plague, but Ist Corinthians 10:8 says that only 23,000 died. Read Ist  Corinthians 10:8 again and notice that 23,000 fell "in one day". The 24,000 died altogether in a few days.

You see, these are the kind of "errors" in the King James Bible. These are the reasons given for you to throw away your Bible and buy a new one. Don't fall for it. I have learned to always give God the benefit of a doubt, and to count the critics guilty until proven innocent. So far I've been right. Anytime I see an "error" in the KJV I just assume that I'm not learned enough in the Scriptures to explain it, but that it is NOT an error. I just pray about it and trust God. I NEVER correct the Book that God has honored for so long. Thank God, I'm not that stupid.”
  [/quote]
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: Ed Sutton on April 13, 2013, 05:07:53 AM
If we the professed "People of the Book" do not defend "The Book" and some one not professing to be of "the People of the Book" does defend "The Book" ought we not to hang our heads in shame for we are shown to have instead to have absorbed some of the tenants of higher criticism ourselves despite our exalted professing otherwise.
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: Ed Sutton on April 13, 2013, 05:19:34 AM

You got my curiosity going here's what I found.

KJV
Leviticus 26:18  And if ye will not yet for all this hearken unto me, then I will punish you seven times <07651> more  <03254> (8804)for your sins.
Leviticus 26:21  And if ye walk contrary unto me, and will not hearken unto me; I will bring seven times <07651> more <03254> (8804) plagues upon you according to your sins.
Leviticus 26:24  Then will I also walk contrary unto you, and will punish you yet seven times <07651> for your sins.
Leviticus 26:28  Then I will walk contrary unto you also in fury; and I, even I, will chastise you seven times <07651> for your sins.

Douay
Leviticus 26:18  But if you will not yet for all this obey me: I will chastise you seven times more for your sins.
Leviticus 26:21  If you walk contrary to me, and will not hearken to me, I will bring seven times more plagues upon you for your sins.
Leviticus 26:24  I also will walk contrary to you, and will strike you seven times for your sins.
Leviticus 26:28  I will also go against you with opposite fury: and I will chastise you with seven plagues for your sins,

 <07651>

07651  בע sheba‘ sheh’- bah or (masc.)  בעה shib‘ah shib-aw’

from 07650; n m/f; {See TWOT on 2318}

AV-seven 355, seventh 13, seventeen + 06240 8, seven times 6, seventeenth + 06240 6, seventeenth 5, sevens + 07657 2, seven men 1, sevenfold 1, seventeen + 06235 1, seventeen + 07657 1; 394

1) seven (cardinal number)
1a) as ordinal number
1b) in combination-17, 700 etc
*******************************

 <03254> (8804)

03254 יסף yacaph yaw-saf’

a primitive root; v; {See TWOT on 876}

AV-more 70, again 54, add 28, increase 16, also 6, exceed 4, put 4, further 4, henceforth 4, can 2, continued 2, give 2, misc 17; 213

1) to add, increase, do again
1a) (Qal) to add, increase, do again
1b) (Niphal)
1b1) to join, join oneself to
1b2) to be joined, be added to
1c) (Hiphil)
1c1) to cause to add, increase
1c2) to do more, do again

Qal 08851, Perfect 08816,

08851 Qal

Qal is the most frequently used verb pattern. It expresses the "simple" or "causal" action of the root in the active voice.

Examples:

he sat, he ate, he went, he said, he rose, he bought

This form accounts for 66.7% of the verbs parsed.

08816 Perfect

The Perfect expresses a completed action.

1) In reference to time, such an action may be:

1a) one just completed from the standpoint of the present
"I have come" to tell you the news

1b) one completed in the more or less distant past
in the beginning God "created"
"I was (once) young" and "I have (now) grown old" but "I have not seen" a righteous man forsaken

1c) one already completed from the point of view of another past act
God saw everything that "he had made"

1d) one completed from the point of view of another action yet future
I will draw for thy camels also until "they have done" drinking

2) The perfect is often used where the present is employed in English.

2a) in the case of general truths or actions of frequent occurrence  —  truths or actions which have been often experienced or observed
the grass "withereth"
the sparrow "findeth" a house

2b) an action or attitude of the past may be continued into the present
"I stretch out" my hands to thee
"thou never forsakest" those who seek thee

2c) the perfect of intransitive verbs is used where English uses the present; The perfect in Hebrew in such a case emphasises a condition which has come into "complete existence" and realisation
"I know" thou wilt be king
"I hate" all workers of iniquity

2d) Sometimes in Hebrew, future events are conceived so vividly and so realistically that they are regarded as having virtually taken place and are described by the perfect.

2d1) in promises, threats and language of contracts
the field "give I" thee
and if not, "I will take it"

2d2) prophetic language
my people "is gone into captivity"
(i.e. shall assuredly go)
 
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: Raven on April 13, 2013, 11:44:38 AM
5k limit


"Errors" in the King James Bible ( Copyright © 1997 James L. Melton
Published by Bible Baptist Church, Sharon, TN ) (bolded underlined - emphasis & added notes given by Ed Sutton showing the S.D.A. position)




1. According to the critics, the word "Easter" in Acts 12:4 is a mistranslation, because the Greek word is"pascha," and it is translated "passover" twenty-eight times in the New Testament, and it should be translated likewise in Acts 12:4.

This is what happens when a man is so hung up on "the Greek" that he can't read plain English. It should NOT be translated "passover" because the Passover had already passed. The "days of unleavened bread" had already begun (vs. 3), which means the Passover was over (Num. 28:16-18; Exo. 12:13-18). The Passover was always the fourteenth day of the first month, while the days of unleavened bread ran from the fifteenth through the twenty-first. Herod could not have been waiting for the Passover. Besides, why would a Gentile king like Herod be concerned about a Jewish feast day? "Easter" is from the pagan "Ishtar", the goddess that the pagans worshipped--Rome included. Herod wanted to wait until his pagan holiday was over before bringing Peter out to the people.



With all due respect to our Baptist friends, they do err, not knowing what they're talking about on this one.  First of all, the word pascha was the common word for Passover.  The burden of proof for translating it differently in this instance is on those who have a fanatical "KJV Only" mentality.  They act as if the KJV translators were inerrant.  A mistake in translation does not make the KJV unreliable, because mistakes are few and far between, and it is easy to look at the Textus Receptus and see how it should be translated. 

For another thing there is no evidence that Easter, as we know it, was being celebrated by Christians at that time.  Also, "the days of unleavened bread" included the whole Passover season.  The terms were often used interchangeably, as can be seen from Luke 22:1.  And Herod paid at least nominal respect to the Jewish religion and it would not have been out of character for him to celebrate the Passover.
Title: Re: the Word of God changed
Post by: Ed Sutton on April 14, 2013, 03:56:00 PM
Acts 12:4  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 <3957> to bring him forth to the people.

3957. πα/σχα pascha pas’-khah; of Aramaic origin [compare 06453]; the Passover (the meal, the day, the festival or the special sacrifices connected with it): —  Easter, Passover.

06453 פסח pecach peh’- sakh from 06452, Greek 3957 πασχα; n m; {See TWOT on 1786 @@ "1786a"}    AV-passover 46, passover offerings 3; 49
1) passover
1a) sacrifice of passover
1b) animal victim of the passover
1c) festival of the passover

06452 פסח pacach paw-sakh’ a primitive root; v; {See TWOT on 1786} {See TWOT on 1787}
AV-pass over 4, halt 1, become lame 1, leap 1; 7
1) to pass over, spring over
1a) (Qal) to pass over
1b) (Piel) to skip, pass over
2) to limp
2a) (Qal) to limp
2b) (Niphal) to be lame
2c) (Piel) to limp

Quote
Herod's act in putting James to death was applauded by the Jews, though some complained of the private manner in which it was accomplished, maintaining that a public execution would have more thoroughly intimidated the believers and those sympathizing  with them. Herod therefore held Peter in custody, meaning still further to gratify the Jews by the public spectacle of his death. But it was suggested that it would not be safe to bring the veteran apostle out for execution before all the people then assembled in Jerusalem. It was feared that the sight of him being led out to die might excite the pity of the multitude.  {AA 144.3} 
    The priests and elders also feared lest Peter might make one of those powerful appeals which had frequently aroused the people to study the life and character of Jesus--appeals which they, with all their arguments, had been unable to controvert. Peter's zeal in advocating the cause of Christ had led many to take their stand for the gospel, and the rulers feared that should he be given an opportunity to defend his faith in the presence of the multitude who had come to the city to worship, his release would be demanded at the hands of the king.  {AA 144.4} 
     While, upon various pretexts, the execution of Peter was being delayed until after the Passover[/u], the members of the church had time for deep searching of heart and earnest prayer. They prayed without ceasing for Peter, for they felt that he could not be spared from the cause. They realized that they had reached a place where, without the special help of God, the church of Christ would be destroyed.  {AA 145.1} 


You are correct about Herod, and pasha <3957>
***************

 
Quote
HEROD was professedly a proselyte to the Jewish faith, and apparently very zealous in perpetuating the ceremonies of the law. The government of Judea was in his hands, subject to Claudius, the Roman emperor; he also held the position of tetrarch of Galilee. Herod was anxious to obtain the favor of the Jews, hoping thus to make secure his offices and honors.  SR 292

I personally prefer to refrain from calling folks fanatics due to a KJV only stance.  I don't want to meet such like slurs in the future, others will malign my stances in religious things soon enough.  He may have been inaccurate in some of his details in defending KJV but was he maliciously motivated.  Noah could not refute all the reasoning's of science falsely so called in his day, but he focused on preaching and building, till time was over.   I need to study his secrets of endurance.