Which Bible

Published: 27th June 2012
Views: N/A

Which Bible

Today we have basically two versions of the Bible to choose from.

They differ substantially on many hundreds of verses and this is a serious thing. Who is correct? Are these texts supposed to be in the Bible or not?

This is downplayed but the truth is very real differences exist in many of the bible versions. In this section I will explain in plain English the how and why. Many will say we don't have the original's of the bible.

What they are saying is that we really don't know what Paul wrote for sure. This casting doubt on the word is of the devil. Jeremiah was told to destroy his original work (Jer.

51:63) because the original is of no concern to God as long as it: has done its work and its message got through. We do not have the original ten commandments either from mosses script nor the tables of stone so maybe they have been modified over the years? This doubt in God's word is taught by "bible scholars".

What we know is that around the third century two schools or libraries of scripuret were developing. One in Antioch, Asia minor the other in Alexandria, Egypt. The one in Antioch had the boring "pharisaical" the word is the word, literal sacred approach.

The one in Antioch had more colorful leaders believing the word was spiritual and not to be taken literally. Their more open philosophy led to new interpretations and a looser translation of the new testament. During the years that followed the forming of the catholic church accepted the more "scholarly" Alexandria manuscripts and soon restricted the use of scripture by anyone except those trained in its proper understanding.

This is why martin Luther fond a copy chained in a church after having been a monk for many years. It was then illegal for anyone to own a copy except the church. Some scattered Greek speaking churches still had the Antioch texts and the "church in the wilderness" the Waldenses and Huganos that fled persecution from the church of Rome had copies of scripture from the Antioch text.

During the reformation some translations were made from the Latin Vulgate and other catholic texts of the Bible but soon this was rejected, even by some catholic scholars. Emmaus a roman catholic scholar at the time of Luther rejected the Vatican text in favor of those used by the Greek churches and other Antioch texts. His text became known as the received text and is what the protestant reformation based its bibles on.

When undertaking the King James Version the catholic text was rejected as full of errors and after many years of using the received text human nature wanted something new and exciting and scholars wanted to make their mark with something new to justify their great learning. Two theologians, Wescott and Hort, with the finding of two new manuscripts the Vaticanus and the Siniaticus believing them to be the oldest Greek text of the New testament said that they were closer to the autographs and therefore more accurate that the received text. This has started the New Bibles and many revisions to it's content.

It is well worth your time to examine the facts that affect which version is correct for it affects key promises and even the Lord's Prayer as well as bible prophecy and the clarity of controversial doctrines. The startling truth is that their in not a single ancient manuscript that supports the "neutral text" the basis of the new translations. The truth is that theologians have decided which parts of which manuscripts are correct and that they have piecemealed together, and constantly revise, a version of the manuscripts which their is scarcely a single manuscript which supports a single book of the bible among the original ancient manuscripts.

Their wisdom alone determines which text is to be included or rewritten. This is a bold move rarely seen before in the history of translation. The protestant reformation translated the bible based on the agreement of whole manuscripts and dared not rearrange them to fit their fancy.

"The King James translators were committed to producing an English Bible that would be a precise translation, and by no means a paraphrase or a broadly approximate rendering. On the one hand, the scholars were almost as familiar with the original languages of the Bible as with their native English. On the other hand, their reverence for the divine Author and His Word assured a translation of the Scriptures in which only a principle of utmost accuracy could be accepted.

"In 1786 the Catholic scholar, Alexander Geddes, said of the King James Bible, 'If accuracy and strictest attention to the letter of the text be supposed to constitute an excellent version, this is of all versions the most excellent'. . .

. Bible readers may be assured that the most important difference in the English New Testament of today are due, not to manuscript divergence, but to the way in which translators view the task of translation: How literally should the text be rendered? How does the translator view the matter of biblical inspiration?

Does the translator adopt a paraphrase when a literal rendering would be quite clear and more to the point? The New King James Version follows the historic precedent of the Authorized Version in maintaining a literal approach to translation, {modern Bibles do not}. .

. The manuscript preferences cited in many contemporary translations of the New Testament are due to recent reliance on a relatively few manuscripts discovered in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Dependence on these manuscripts, especially two, the Sinaitic and Vatican manuscripts, is due to the greater age of these documents.

However in spite of their age, some scholars have reason to doubt their faithfulness to the autographs, since they often disagree with one another and show other signs of unreliability. The Greek text obtained by using these sources and related papyri is known as the Alexandrian Text. "The great majority of existing manuscripts are in substantial agreement.

. . .

This large body of manuscripts is the source of the Greek text underlying the King James Bible. It is the Greek text used by the Greek-speaking churches for many centuries, presently known as the Textus Receptus, or Received Text. "A growing number of scholars now regard the Received Text as far more reliable than previously thought.

" Preface of the New King James pgs iii, vi. CHANGING BIBLE TEXTS - An Important Issue

How important is it?

"Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you. " Deut. 4:2 (Also Rev.

22:18,19). Many times I have heard new versions quoted and found sentences added without and Greek or Hebrew to back it up. This is why no new version will italicize their supplies words.

It would show them up to much. For every text they "make clearer" they make numerous texts into absurdities. Many doctrines are heavily slanted in the new translations.

For example the prophecy we will study in Daniel 8:14 is rewritten even though all use the same Hebrew text in order to fit into more modern theories. This is especially true of some controversial texts so we will only examine clear and obvious errors here. Since this is a very serious issue lets take a closer look:

Let's examine a few texts like: Luke 4:4 "And Jesus answered him, saying, 'It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, [but by every word of God. ]'" They cut out by every word of God and thus the whole meaning, making this text just a stupid comment on diet.

Shirley Jesus said what we are to live by and completed the thought? Rev 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. " is changed to mean something entirely different "Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life .

. . " They say it means wash their robes in the blood of the Lamb but it doesn't say that.

What it now says is that those that have clean laundry go to heaven. Shall we honor the exact words used or change them to suit our idea's? "Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.

" John 14:23. If we honor the words Jesus used we will not correct his words and change them. Yet in Matthew 12:40 they FIX the word of God "For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

" All manuscripts have the Greek word Keetous meaning a whale, none have the Greek word often used by Jesus Ichthun meaning a fish. Yet most modern Bibles correct it and replace the world Whale with Fish. This they do to be consistent, in their opinion, with the story in Jonah.

This liberty is common in modern translations. How many changes? In the New International Version which is touted as the most accurate we have in the New Testament alone 17 whole verses omitted, 180 portions of verses omitted, 173 more omissions of God's Name, and 229 additional changes that change the meaning of the verse.

For example the Why of the verse in Matt 9:13 "But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance. "

Mark 2:17 "When Jesus heard it, he saith unto them, They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance. " Leaving out to repentance destroys the purpose of the verse. John 6:47 "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.

" Again we believe on WHO? Or What? It doesn't say in the new Bibles.

Col 1:14 "In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:" How do we have redemption? The new Bibles don't say. Why did they make these changes?

The fixing of the Bible to make it more acceptable to the doctrines of the church accounts for many changes. This can be seen in several texts like: Matt 1:25 "And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS. " First born implies other children could have been born to Mary but Rome teaches the permanent virginity of Mary, so they "cut out" firstborn.

Again in Matt 6:13 "And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen. " The church taught that it was the kingdom that Jesus was praying for so in order to prevent confusion they cut out this verse from the Lord's prayer in order to spare people confusion.

Dr. Gordon D. Free, a professor at Wheaton College, said in an article promoting the new versions in CHRISTIANITY TODAY

"The Contemporary translations as a group have one thing in common: they tend to agree against the KJB. .

. in omitting hundreds of words, phrases, and verses. " Quoted in LET'S WEIGH THE EVIDENCE by Barry Burton pg.

13. Where are these omissions? In the preface to the New American Standard Version "Brackets in the text are around words probably not in the original writings.

" That is most theologians do not believe that the Word of God was preserved in the faith, but was lost until the mid 1800's. The following is a list of some of the bracketed texts in the NAS (because it is not found in the Alexandrian Text. ) the same list also applies to the other modern Bibles such as the NIV, TEV, NRSV, ASV, etc

Acts 8:36-38 parts Luke 24:40 All


17:21 All Matt. 23:14 All

Matt. 18:11 All Mark 9:43-46 parts

Mark 7:16 All Mark 16:9-20 All

Mark 11:26 All Matt.

6:13 last sentence of lords prayer

Mark 15:28 All Luke 22:19-20 (all of 20)

Luke 17:36 All John 5:3-5 (all of 4)

Mark 15:28 All Acts 15:34 All

Luke 17:36 All Acts 24:6-8 (all of 7)

Luke 23:17 All John 7:53-John8:11 All

Luke 24:11-13 (all of 12)

Words missing but not even noted. (not even in brackets)

Matt. 1:25 firstborn Matt.

6:33 of God


8:29 Jesus Matt. 9:13 to repentance

Matt. 12:35 of the heart Matt. 13:51 Jesus saith unto them,

Matt. 16:3 O ye hypocrites, Matt.

16:20 Jesus


19:17 that is GOD Matt. 20:7 and whatsoever is right, that shall ye receive

Matt. 20:16 for many are called but few chosen

Matt. 20:22 And to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with

Matt. 25:13 wherein the Son of man cometh

Matt. 27:35 that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, They parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots. Matt.

28:2 from the door, Matt. 28:9 And as they went to tell his disciples,

Mark 1:14 of the kingdom Mark 2:17 to repentance

PLUS+ Mark 7:16; 9:24; 9:42; 9:44,46; 10:21; 11:10,26; 12,29-30; 13:14; 15:28; 16:9-20, Luke 1:28; 2:33,43; 4:4,8,41; 7:31; 9:54; 11:29; 22:31; 23:17,42; 24:12,40,49,51, John 1:14,18,27; 3:13,15; 4:42; 5:3,4; 6:47; 7:53; 8:11; 8:16; 11:41; 16:16; 17:12, Acts 2:30; 7:30,37; 8:37; 9:5-6; 10:6; 16:31; 17:26; 20:25, Rom.

1:16; 5:2; 9:28; 11:6; 13:9; 14:6,9,21; 15:29; 16:24, 1 Cor. 5:7; 6:20; 7:39; 10:28; 11:24,29; 15:47; 16:22,23, 2 Cor. 4:6,10, Gal.

3:1; 4:7; 6:15, Eph. 3:9 (Plus 80 more)

Likewise there are numerous old testament texts which are supposed to be based on the same Jewish manuscripts that have been butchered like Isa. 59:19 in which "the enemy" has been removed completely gutting the meaning of this verse. Their CLAIM:

They claim that finding these older copies supports the few Alexandrian library Greek version since their, debatable and opinionated, analysis concludes that these are the oldest Greek version of the New Testament. Though they admit that older Syrian translations exist that support the traditional Received text they are excited the have something new. A handful of Alexandrian manuscripts, as they are called since that is where they are believed to have originated from, were examined and rejected by the early protestant cannons or bible counsels including the King James Version.

They have numerous problems with their manuscripts and to fix these they have merged them together into one "neutral" version and it is from one of these Greek versions which all modern bibles are translated from. Lets examine some of these claims to accuracy.

Report this article Ask About This Article

More to Explore