One either believes the whole Bible or will have little or no faith in any of it.

[User]

14 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Here again you are falsely making things up.  I was talking about Isaiah being corrupt, not Revelation being corrupt.

I never said Revelation is corrupt although in the modern versions there is lots of corruption in it.  But I never said this because we were talking about Isaiah 14:12 being corrupt.   I think you need to take a rest.  You are getting carried away with nonsense.

Maybe take the time to read my comments instead of just saying I am making things up. 

You are comparing Isaiah to Revelation. You are saying the NASB is corrupt. Now, I am asking you to show why it is corrupt based on the manuscripts. What are the original Greek, Hebrew, Latin being translated here by the KJV that you assert is correct in the KJV but corrupt in the NASB. 

16 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Go back and read the comments.  I explained it in detail.

No, you didn't. 

[blackbird]

1 hour ago, User said:

You are the one who can't back this up by showing what the KJV translation was based on. 

I already told you a number of times the KJV is based on the Received Text and supported by the majority of manuscripts.  What else needs to be said?

"

470 • NEW AGE VERSIONS

There are over 5366 manuscripts of the Greek New Testament. A corrupt few give a view of the text much like a shifting kaleidoscope. "They contain several hundred thousand variant readings. . notes Pickering.7 In an attempt to marry these 'moody' manuscripts, the 'Wheel of Fortune’ is whirled and readings are selected for inclusion in what scholars call a 'critical edition of the Greek Text’. There are more than two dozen of these texts, each a 'prize' stuffed with between 5000 and 8000 variations. As one scholar puts it, ". . .equally competent critics often arrive at contrary conclusions as to the same variation."8

Scholar's Sources

Evidence for the New Testament is composed of papyrus fragments and manuscripts, uncial and minuscule manuscripts (modified capitals and cursives) and lectionaries (books used in churches). Each of the 5366 manuscripts including 2209 lectionaries extant today are given a name, an abbreviation and/or a number.9

In addition to the above, numerous other language versions of the Greek text were made in the second century and those following. Those include the Old Latin, the Syriac, the Coptic, the Ethiopic, and score of others. These provide witnesses to the correct readings of the New Testament. Finally, scores of second, third and forth century personalities, such as John Chrysostom, Irenaeus, Tertullain, and Justin Martyr, to name just a few, have left writings containing citations of scripture verses, witnessing to the original readings of the New Testament. Dean John Burgon has extrapolated over 87,000 of these. Currently the manuscripts are being collated by the Institutfur neutestamentiche Tereforschung by Kurt Aland in Munster, Germany. Microfilms of many are housed in the archives of the Ancient Biblical Manuscript Center in Claremont, California. Should the reader wish to pursue their own investigation, a list of sources where copies of those manuscripts may be found is given in this footnote. 

The Majority Text

The overwhelming majority of these manuscripts, lectionaries, and writers agree generally with each other as to the readings of the New Testament. Manuscripts from the second century (P66) down through the Middle Ages (A.D.1500) attest to the readings of this 'Majority Text', as Kurt Aland terms it. Dean Burgon, who found this 'Majority Text' in most of the early writers collated, calls it 'The Traditional Text’. It is also called the Syrian Text, the Byzantine Text and the K (Kappa) or Common Text.

This text type is available today in English in the Authorized Version , or as it is called in the United States, the King James Version. It's 809,000,000 copies since 1611, in 300 languages, demonstrates the continuum of this 'Majority Text'. (Unfortunately, as we shall see, the new versions are not based on this 'Majority Text', but on the dissenting handful of manuscripts which disagree with the Majority.)

The scriptures themselves attest to the proliferation and early creation of a 'Majority' text.

Acts 6:7

"And the word of God increased."

Acts 12:24

"But the word of God grew and multiplied."

Acts 13:49

”[T]he word of the Lord was published throughout all the region"

Acts 19:20

"So mightily grew the word of God and prevailed."

Pickering explains the multiplication of the originals throughout history.

[W]e may reasonably assume that in the earliest period of the transmission of the text, the most reliable copies of the Autographs would be circulating in the region that held the Autographs. With an ever-increasing demand and consequent proliferation of copies throughout the GraecoRoman world and with the potential for verifying copies by having recourse to the centers still possessing the Autographs, the early textual situation was highly favorable to the wide dissemination of MSS in close agreement with the original text. . .It follows that within a relatively few years after the writing of the N.T. books, there came rapidly into existence a 'Majority text’, whose form was essentially that of the Autographs. . .the science of statistical probability demonstrates that a text form in such circumstances could scarcely be dislodged from its dominant position. . .[I]n every age, from the apostolic to the nineteenth century, the text form in question. . .was the one that the church in general recognized, used, and transmitted.il

From the academic arena, world-class scholars express their unanimous agreement on the overwhelming dominance of this type of New Testament text in the early church and throughout history.

• Colwell calls it ”[T]he uncontrolled popular edition of the second century." 12

• Comfort says it, "became the most prevailing type of text throughout the Greek speaking world. . .it was nearly standardized. From then on, almost all MSS follow the Byzantine [Majority] text, including those MSS used by Erasmus in compiling the text that eventually would become the Textus Receptus." [The Greek Text type underlying the KJV.]i3

• Geerlings affirms regarding the Majority Text saying, "Its origins. . .go back to the autographs." i4

• Hodges writes, "The Majority text, it must be remembered, is relatively uniform in its general character with comparatively low amounts of variation between its major representatives. . . [T]he majority of MSS in the transmission of any book will, a priori preserve the best text. Thus the Majority Text, upon which the King James Version is based, has in reality the strongest claim possible to be regarded as an authentic representation of the original text. . .based on its dominances in the transmissional history of the New Testament text." is

• Harvard Theological Review cites Kirsopp Lake's exhaustive examination of MSS which revealed, "the uniformity of the text exhibited by the vast majority of the New Testament manuscripts."

• Von Soden, who made the most extensive review of the text yet accomplished, calls it the Common (Kappa) text, showing that it was the Greek text type most commonly used throughout history.

• Kurt Aland's collation of 1000 minuscules in 1000 different passages shows that 90% contain the 'Traditional Text'. Work done at The Institut fur neutestamentliche Textforschung in Munster, Germany confirms this same 90%. When they include papyrus and uncials together with cursives the number remains above 80%. i6

• Metzger agrees speaking of ". . .the great majority of the minuscule manuscripts on which the Textus Receptus rests." 

• Hills says, "The vast majority of these extant Greek New Testament manuscripts agree together very closely, so closely indeed that they may fairly be said to contain the same New Testament. This Majority Text is usually called the Byzantine Text by modem textual critics. This is because all modem critics acknowledge that this was the Greek New Testament text in general use throughout the greater part of the Byzantine Period (A.D.312-1453). For many centuries, before the Protestant Reformation, this Byzantine text was the text of the entire Greek Church, and for more then three centuries after the Reformation, it was the text of the entire Protestant Church. . .[It is] found in the vast majority of the Greek New Testament manuscripts. . .[T]he Traditional Text.

. .is the true text because it is that form of the Greek New Testament which is known to have been used in the Church of Christ in unbroken succession. . .Thus the evidence which has accumulated. . .is amply sufficient to justify the view. . .that therefore the Byzantine text found in the vast majority of the Greek New Testament manuscripts is that true text."is

1881: The 1% Minority

[A] false balance is an abomination to the Lord.

Proverbs 11:1

The variations among the Majority Text are minor, like the varieties of doves. On the other hand, the remaining handful of manuscripts are as diverse as dogs and dragons. This handful, not only disagree with 'the Majority', as to what the New Testament says, but disagree among themselves. These include such manuscripts as Vaticanus (B), Sinaiticus (Aleph), Bezae (D), Papyrus 75 and a smattering of versions. Of the four uncials, Aleph, B, C, and D, Burgon writes:

All four are discovered on careful scrutiny to differ essentially, not only from the 99 out of 100 of the whole body of extant manuscripts, but even from one another. 19

In 1881 this 1% minority text type supplanted the Majority Text with its almost two millennia standing. A 'New' Greek Text, using the Vatican manuscript (B), was introduced by Westcott and Hort and has been used as the Greek Text for all subsequent versions.

Frederic Kenyon, the late Director of the British Museum and author of the most widely used textbooks on textual criticism, says of the Majority Text:

This is the text found in the great majority of manuscripts, entrenched in print by Erasmus and Stephanus and known as the Textus Receptus or Received Text. . .Until 1881. . .it held the field as the text in practically universal use and when its position was then decisively challenged, a stiff fight was made in its defence by advocates such as Burgon. [This 'New' Minority-type Greek text] used predominantly. . .Aleph and B type readings. . .[The changes] amount to an extensive modification of the text. [It] has been the dominating influence in all modem critical editions. It is clear that. . .deliberate alteration. . .has been at work on a large scale in one text or the other. . .The Textus Receptus being habitually the longer and fuller of the two .20

Pickering reveals the continued use of this 1 % text by the new version editors.

[The new versions] ignore the over 5000 Greek MSS now extant. . .[T]he evidence cited does prove that aberrant

forms of the N.T. text were produced. Naturally some of those text forms may have acquired a local and temporary currency. Recall that the possibility of checking with the Autographs must have served to inhibit the spread of such forms. We have the Majority Text (Aland) or the Traditional Text (Burgon), dominating the stream of transmission with a few individual witnesses going their idiosyncratic ways. . .One may reasonably speak of 90% of the extant MSS belonging to the Majority Text type. . ,[T]he remaining 10-20% do not represent a single competing form.

The minority MSS disagree as much (or more) among themselves as they do with the majority. We are not judging between two text forms, one representing 80% of the MSS and the other 20%. Rather we have to judge between 80-90% and a fraction of 1% (comparing the Majority text with P75 and B text form for example. . .) Or to take a specific case, in I Timothy 3:16 over 300 Greek MSS read 'God' [KJV]. . .7 Greek MSS read 'who' [NIV, NASB, etc.] So we have to judge between 97% and 2 %. . .

It really does seem that those scholars who reject the Majority text are faced with a serious problem. . .They are remnants reflecting ancient aberrant forms. It is a dependence on such aberrant forms that distinguishes contemporary critical editions of the New Testament. . .1 submit that due process requires us to receive as original that form of the text which is supported by the majority of witnesses. To reject their testimony in favour of our own imagination as to what a reading ought to be is manifestly untenable .21

Hodges describes the readings in the new versions.

[M]odern criticism repeatedly and systematically rejects majority readings on a large scale. . .[This is] monstrously unscientific. . .[I]f modern criticism continues its trend toward more genuinely scientific procedures, this question will once again become a central consideration. . .[T]he Textus Receptus was too hastily abandoned. . .22

Pages 470-476  New Age Bible Versions at the archive.org website

 

 

[User]

2 hours ago, blackbird said:

I already told you a number of times the KJV is based on the Received Text and supported by the majority of manuscripts.  What else needs to be said?

Easy. Actually answer the question. 

What are the actual root words of that Received Text that the KJV used to translate Isaiah and Revelations from you are talking about here?

This is your bad argument and you can't answer a simple question to support it. 

 

[blackbird]

2 hours ago, User said:

Easy. Actually answer the question. 

What are the actual root words of that Received Text that the KJV used to translate Isaiah and Revelations from you are talking about here?

This is your bad argument and you can't answer a simple question to support it. 

 

I already told you what the Hebrew words used Isaiah 14:12 were.  It is "helel, ben shachar".  I don't have the Hebrew root words for Rev. 22:16, but it is reasonable to believe they are the words for morning star.  Knowing the Hebrew words for Revelation 22:16 will prove nothing.  
Those words are not in dispute.  Nobody questions the use of morning star in Rev. 22:16.  So what is your point?

I don't think you are interested in any facts about the version issue.  We might as well end this discussion here.   Unless God gives you the grace to want to know the truth, there is nothing I can say on here that will change anything.  So far, you show you are not really interested in knowing and don't care.  It appears to me that truth is not one of your interests.  Unless you can give some evidence you really want to know, we might as well give it up.  The only suggestion I can make is if you are serious in wanting to know the truth, buy the book I mentioned or some similar book. It is hard to read the book on the internet.

Edited January 9 by blackbird

[User]

10 hours ago, blackbird said:

Knowing the Hebrew words for Revelation 22:16 will prove nothing.  
Those words are not in dispute.  Nobody questions the use of morning star in Rev. 22:16.  So what is your point?

Your argument regarding Isaiah was based on contrasting it with what is in Rev 22:16. I did not pull Rev 22:16 out of the air here and ask you to back up your claims about it. YOU brought it up as part of YOUR bad argument. 

It is your bad argument that the NASB and others are corrupt because of how they translated Isaiah vs Revelations, and you can't even explain why based on the manuscripts being used. 

My point is and continues to be, this is another bad example you provided that you can't back up. 

10 hours ago, blackbird said:

I don't think you are interested in any facts about the version issue.  We might as well end this discussion here.   Unless God gives you the grace to want to know the truth, there is nothing I can say on here that will change anything.  So far, you show you are not really interested in knowing and don't care.  It appears to me that truth is not one of your interests.  Unless you can give some evidence you really want to know, we might as well give it up.  The only suggestion I can make is if you are serious in wanting to know the truth, buy the book I mentioned or some similar book. It is hard to read the book on the internet.

This is comical. We are stuck on my wanting you to offer the "truth" you are using here to make your bad argument. 

Now you accuse me of not wanting to know the truth. 

No, you can't provide it. 

 

[blackbird]

1 hour ago, User said:

It is your bad argument that the NASB and others are corrupt because of how they translated Isaiah vs Revelations, and you can't even explain why based on the manuscripts being used. 

You seem to be blind to the fact, the heretical editors of modern versions took Lucifer out of Isaiah 14:12 where the passages describe his fall from heaven.  It is an account of where Satan came from; therefore it is very important.  It is the only place in the Bible that the Lucifer is named.

As the book says, mythology paints a different picture of Lucifer.   Only the Bible tells the truth about him.

I showed you the original Hebrew used the word for Lucifer which is "helel" and it has been translated that way for many centuries.  Only in the last century has it been changed to morning star which is the name which refers to Jesus Christ.  Nobody can make this stuff up.  This is a huge corruption and blasphemy.

I am not sure why you claim I am not explaining it based on the manuscripts.  I have repeated it over and over.  The modern versions are not even following the manuscripts in any way when they took Lucifer out of Isaiah 14:12.  I have give you a clear explanation, but you don't accept it and falsely claim I didn't explain it.

[blackbird]

1 hour ago, User said:

This is comical. We are stuck on my wanting you to offer the "truth" you are using here to make your bad argument. 

Here is something else about the modern versions that you probably never heard of.

A man by the name of Gerhard Kittel who was a theologian in Germany prior to WW2, who wrote for Hitler and the Nazis against the Jews.  He joined the Nazi party.

"His writings penned between 1937 and 1943 caused the physical death of millions of Jews and spiritual death for untold others.  Using a cloak of 'Christianity' and 'science', Kittel was the chief architect of the so-called 'racial science' and 'Christian base' for Hitler's anti-Semitism.   ......   He established a solid Christian foundation for the opposition to the Jews."  "Kittel called himself 'the first authority in Germany in the scientific consideration of the Jewish question."

"William Foxwell Albright, a prominent archaeologist and Semitic scholar, writes:

Kittel is ..  even darker and more menacing ... that Goerring or Goebbels...(He credits Kittel with) ... the grim distinction of making extermination of the Jews theologically respectable."

Kittel was tried and convicted of war crimes and committed to prison after the war.

So what does this have to do with the modern Bible versions?

Gerhard Kittel authored the ten volume Greek New Testament dictionary which is used by all modern Bible translators.

"Kittel's trial, conviction and imprisonment for his key part in the extermination of two thirds of Europe's Jewish population is a harsh fact, hidden to those pridefully seeking 'hidden' meaning in the Greek."  It is stunning to think Kittel has had an influence on the modern versions of the Bible.

The NASB and other modern versions add the words "the guilt of" to Matt. 23:35, words which appear in no Greek manuscript.  The NASB on my cell phone has the three words in italics which must indicate that the words were added by the NASB translators or editors.  

Edited January 9 by blackbird

[User]

26 minutes ago, blackbird said:

You seem to be blind to the fact, the heretical editors of modern versions took Lucifer out of Isaiah 14:12 where the passages describe his fall from heaven.  It is an account of where Satan came from; therefore it is very important.  It is the only place in the Bible that the Lucifer is named.

LOL, now they are heretical?

Again, they took Lucifer out because the original manuscripts and context did not support putting Lucifer there. The KJV added it because they used the Latin translation...

This is why I keep asking you to show what KJV uses in Revelation. 

The problem here is KJV. 

37 minutes ago, blackbird said:

I showed you the original Hebrew used the word for Lucifer which is "helel" and it has been translated that way for many centuries.  Only in the last century has it been changed to morning star which is the name which refers to Jesus Christ.  Nobody can make this stuff up.  This is a huge corruption and blasphemy.

Yet again, you assert morning star means Jesus in Revelation... so show what the KJV used to translate that from. 

Show the side-by-side comparison for the root words KJV uses in Isaiah vs Revelation. This is your argument. 

45 minutes ago, blackbird said:

I am not sure why you claim I am not explaining it based on the manuscripts.  I have repeated it over and over.  The modern versions are not even following the manuscripts in any way when they took Lucifer out of Isaiah 14:12.  I have give you a clear explanation, but you don't accept it and falsely claim I didn't explain it.

Because you have yet to show how the KJV translates this in Revelation as you claim. 

[blackbird]

1 hour ago, User said:

Yet again, you assert morning star means Jesus in Revelation... so show what the KJV used to translate that from. 

So you are being devious in that you think by asking me to prove it with some Greek, which I know nothing about, proves anything.   You ask this in spite of the fact every version of the Bible has morning star in Revelation.  That proves you are just being contrary and devious.   There is nothing to prove about morning star being in Rev 22:16 because it is in all versions.

[blackbird]

1 hour ago, User said:

LOL, now they are heretical?

Yes, it is in the book which you refuse to read.

quote

"Some modern translations tend toward the heretical by virtue of the force of the presuppositions that govern the translation"  -  D.A. Carson

"They desired to make Holy Scriptures witness to their own peculiar beliefs."  -  John Burgon

"Woe unto you scribes"   Matthew 23:14 KJV    This is left out of the NIV and the NASB.

 

[blackbird]

1 hour ago, User said:

LOL, now they are heretical?

 

quote

Edwin Palmer: NIV

He was the "coordinator of all work on the NIV" and 

"selected all of the personnel of the initial translation committee." 1 He also edited the NIV Study Bible which Zondervan says includes the "liberal position . "2 His scandalous and sacrilegious statement will stun and shock the reader. In one of his books he quotes a verse of his own translation, then says:

[T]his [his own translation] shows the great error that is so prevalent today in some orthodox Protestant circles, namely that regeneration depends upon faith. . .and that in order to be bom again man must first accept Jesus as his Savior.3

If he denies "faith" and each individual’s responsibility to "accept Jesus as his Savior," what does he offer in its place?

unquote    page 230, 231    New Age Bible Versions  archive.org

[User]

41 minutes ago, blackbird said:

So you are being devious in that you think by asking me to prove it with some Greek, which I know nothing about, proves anything.   You ask this in spite of the fact every version of the Bible has morning star in Revelation.  That proves you are just being contrary and devious.   There is nothing to prove about morning star being in Rev 22:16 because it is in all versions.

If you don't know anything about this, how are you here making this argument?

 

22 minutes ago, blackbird said:

If he denies "faith" and each individual’s responsibility to "accept Jesus as his Savior," what does he offer in its place?

I am not chasing down NIV stuff. What do you have for the NASB?

 

33 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Yes, it is in the book which you refuse to read.

Yet again, more baseless assertions. Just because this book makes the same bogus assertions, doesn't make it true. 

 

[blackbird]

6 hours ago, User said:

Just because this book makes the same bogus assertions, doesn't make it true. 

It gives the evidence and compares countless verses which prove what it says is true.  You've never read it but seem to think you know all about it.

[User]

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

It gives the evidence and compares countless verses which prove what it says is true.  You've never read it but seem to think you know all about it.

Well, based on the examples you have provided so far, it has not offered anything compelling and your ability to articulate and defend what you have read isn't great either.