The HIstory of the protestant bible ,and how error has been introduced

[marcelle19]

I have followed the last few posts and have one comment to make ,there have been many who have viewed this thread and there seems to be interest in it ,however I am in 2 minds whether to continue ,as it has deteriorated into a specific disagreement concerning one word .

I know as soon as you debate anything concerning the Authorised version you are immediately labelled a bigotted KJV onleyist ,and that we should all read the modern versions because they are easier to understand ,well I have seen 8 year olds who can perfectly well understand the KJV .

No the real reason is that the counterfeit text is now so established in the theological world that it has been portrayed as the normal while the true text has been labelled abnormal .The perverted is now regarded as the normal

I am tired of those who say there is no difference and that the new versions contain exactly the same "WORDS of God" ....THAT IS A LIE ...and those who promote the modern versions know its a lie .

I see discussions here about the TRinity ,well as Christians we believe in the Trinity at least I do because of 1John 5:7 in the AV

I believe in the resurrection Mark 16:19 in the AV

I believe Christ is the Son of God so why is it omitted from Acts 8:37 in the NIV

I believe Christ Jesus is Lord and it says it 60 times more in the AV

SO WHY DO SO CALLED CHRISTIANS QUESTION THIS ?

What is going on here ?


Check those verse with the NIV and the SAV and tell me they say the same ..THEY DO NOT

Twice in the AV the Word of God tells me that I live by the faith" OF "the Son of God and not faith "IN " the Son OF God ,completely different doctrinal point siezed on by faith/works because if we live by the faith "OF"Christ Jesus then they cannot say about faith levels

WHy do those within Christendom want to argue against these bible truths found in the 5,300 manuscripts denounced by modern versions in favour of 2 manuscripts used by Westcott and Hort or Nestle and Aland

All 4 were not Bible believers ,that is enough reason not to use modern versions ...what more reason does a saint need than that

WHY DO THEY NOT WANT THE WORD OF GOD TO TELL US THAT CHRIST IS LORD AND THAT HE WAS RESURRECTED AND THAT THERE IS A TRINITY ,the answer has to be that once again satan is asking the question ..."Did God really say that ,well Jesus never doubted scripture during His temptation and therefore neither do I

They say that doctrine isnt different ..That again is a lie

If anyone at all does not believe that there is a doctrinal reason for the changes then check out the changes in Romans in the modern versions ,check out the changes in 1 Corinthians , Gaalatians, Ephesians,and if anyone tells me that there are no changes to doctrine .then we do not believe in the same CHrist Jesus or in the same God


To say this is unimportant and that we should all just accept modern versions and not make disagreement is just what the liberal modernists want ,because,
they all have an hidden agenda promoting heresy and error

Do not be like Adam and Eve fall prey to the beguiling words of Satan .......

"DID GOD REALLY SAY THAT "?

we should answer satan with in the scriptures "IT IS WRITTEN" and "YES GOD REALLY SAID THAT"

That's why I posted the link, brother - it looks at it objectively, from both sides.

[Onesiphorus]

Dear marcelle19 ,this thread is concerned primarily not with the KJV v NIV ,this has been introduced as a diversion .this thread is more to do with the "texts"behind the versions .

So I would rather not be diverted into a argument on that ,I suggest someone opens a thread along those lines elsewhere


I am not interested here whether gail riplinger has upset the camp of her opponents ,or links promoting NIV ot KJV ,per se .

I want to if you like expose the ulterior motives of the modernist /new age/liberal/rationalist thinking of those in the 19 th century who manipulted and used their position to introduce philosophical platonic and neoplatonic ideologies into their text under the pretence of revising the Majority text whilst introducing a text which was a perversion

[marcelle19]

Dear marcelle19 ,this thread is concerned primarily not with the KJV v NIV ,this has been introduced as a diversion .this thread is more to do with the "texts"behind the versions .

So I would rather not be diverted into a argument on that ,I suggest someone opens a thread along those lines elsewhere


I am not interested here whether gail riplinger has upset the camp of her opponents ,or links promoting NIV ot KJV ,per se .

I want to if you like expose the ulterior motives of the modernist /new age/liberal/rationalist thinking of those in the 19 th century who manipulted and used their position to introduce philosophical platonic and neoplatonic ideologies into their text under the pretence of revising the Majority text whilst introducing a text which was a perversion

I guess I should have said it is about the "texts" behind the versions - it always comes down to that, if one really wants to get into it.

I don't understand the disagreement among Christians who are loving the Lord as He gives them power to, anyhow...as I have said many times.

All those who hold to the Received=Authorized=Majority text are always labeled as KJV only, and those on the other side are labeled a lot of different things, but I don't see why there are sides, except for the fact that we are not willing to look at these things in the light of God's truth, by His Spirit.

I actually do understand why there are sides, as I'm sure you do, but that's not necessary to go into here.

I would have thought you would have known that this thread would turn into that sort of thing, because you can't look at the texts without either saying one is better than the other, or that both are good, or...and that naturally leads to division that is not of God.

In any case, the research must be done according to His leading to properly divide the word of truth, by His Spirit, and the link I gave gives both sides, from textual and other considerations, letting each have their say, if one is willing to listen to and read all the material - there is a lot of it, but it is worth it, for those who want to do the research and objectively look at why this controversy even exists.

Not trying to divert the thread, brother, just giving a link where one who wishes can research the matter fully.

Peace and Love in Christ, my brother.

Bill

[Onesiphorus]

I know you are not Bill ,and that is why I am responding ,I think you have nailed it when you say it is all about the texts .

I would use any version if it came from the correct text and that is non -Alexandrian School

You see we read of the Bible as if it is not the Word of God ,the scriptures inspired by God and preserved . I am sure that everyone here agrees that the scriptures are the inspired word of GOd ,and would defend them ,yet when it comes to preservation the majority are silent because they think that a bible is a bible is a bible ,but when you look into the history of the preservation of the inspired scriptures you will find that is not the case and almost immediately those who wish to distort the Word were at work and it is satanic ,and the ministers of satan are still attacking the word only now from within .

I am giving out a warning if you like to beware of these satanic ministers who are pretending to be of the light ,it is a deception .

No one ever told me the bible I was reading and advised to read ,ie ,the NIV ,was fundamentally and textually different and in many cases in opposition to the words of the Authorised ,and I am not telling anyone who wants to continue with whatever version they have ,all I am doing is telling it now to others so unlike me I had to find it out for myself after some 10 years of searching ,what I am saying is come to your own conclusion after following up where the foundations of the 2 Schools are from

ie The Antioch School and the Alexandrian School

and so I hope to cover the Antioch School and the history of he Majority text soon ,but first I have to highlight the ideologies of those who introduced the new Greek text in the 19th century and have infiltrated the bastions of theology ever since

[inquisitive]

This thread and topic has been very indepth for me, and some thing i hadnt gone into before

they think that a bible is a bible is a bible

Yes thats me.

I simply dont use the kjv as its in a language that is both outdated and not in my understanding, just as people say the latin vulgate is an outdated thing because its wrote in a dead language, equally the language used in kjv is, its old english......for me i cant understand it, i applaud those young childer that can....

But i am following your posts especially onesi as i had not even heard of ...

ie The Antioch School and the Alexandrian School

I might not comment much, but i am following, time to speak n time to shut up n all that, so i hope ya carry on, complicated as its getting i still trying to follow.

[marcelle19]

You forgot the Byzantine school, onesiphorus.

The link I posted is really worth checking out all the material on, if you are of a mind too.

I agree, in main, on the NIV, but Ray C. Stedman used that, and check out the ministry God used him of - though I disagree on what he teaches of self-determinism, as I do with all who teach it - I think that is one of the most subtle tools of the enemy, taking glory away from God.

That link also provides a lot of good apologetics regarding another church you have had some run-ins with.

But I would say, check out all the material, not just some of it - get the full view of both sides from bible believing scholars of both sides, in prayerful, worshipful, thankful, God fearing and trusting study.

I know we mainly believe the same things.

That's why I respond too, my brother.

Love in Christ,

Bill

[Lily]

I might not comment much, but i am following, time to speak n time to shut up n all that, so i hope ya carry on, complicated as its getting i still trying to follow.

I second that Onesie, I'm following with avid interest to. PLease keep up the good work

[Onesiphorus]

Thank you all for the comments ,it means a lot to me as ,previously stated ,a lot of the history has been systematically destroyed ,and a lot has been hidden from the saints ,so thanks once again

[Pariah]

Dear marcelle19 ,this thread is concerned primarily not with the KJV v NIV ,this has been introduced as a diversion .this thread is more to do with the "texts"behind the versions .

So I would rather not be diverted into a argument on that ,I suggest someone opens a thread along those lines elsewhere


I am not interested here whether gail riplinger has upset the camp of her opponents ,or links promoting NIV ot KJV ,per se .

I want to if you like expose the ulterior motives of the modernist /new age/liberal/rationalist thinking of those in the 19 th century who manipulted and used their position to introduce philosophical platonic and neoplatonic ideologies into their text under the pretence of revising the Majority text whilst introducing a text which was a perversion

I apologize, Onesiphorus. I was merely citing an example as to how false teachings can derive out of those changed meanings thus alluding to some of the views of the translators as exposing their ulterior motives for doing so.

I had assumed those that read the background on those translators in this thread would see how by what I had shared, reflected their views.

Sorry.

[titus212]

I see discussions here about the TRinity ,well as Christians we believe in the Trinity at least I do because of 1John 5:7 in the AV

I believe in the resurrection Mark 16:119 in the AV

I believe Christ Jesus is Lord and it says it 60 times more in the AV

SO WHY DO SO CALLED CHRISTIANS QUESTION THIS ?


Check those verse with the NIV and the SAV and tell me they say the same ..THEY DO NOT

WHY DO THEY NOT WANT THE WORD OF GOD TO TELL US THAT CHRIST IS LORD AND THAT HE WAS RESURRECTED AND THAT THERE IS A TRINITY

My NIV DOES support the idea of the Trinity, it DOES say that Jesus is Lord and that he WAS resurrected, that he is the only Way the only Truth, the only Life, the only way to God the Father. My NIV says that by believing in Him we have eternal life, that He will judge us at the end of time, that His blood was shed for the fogivness of our sins. My NIV does NOT deny any of the things you are accusing it of saying.

I have been trying to refute the claims and show that the wording may be different in places, but the meaning IS the same. I am still waiting and will continue to wait for you to provide comparisons that prove that there is error in the modern versions, thus nullifing my faith in the NIV as the Word of God (which will never happen as you will not prove any of it.). Sorry if my post sounds harsh, I don't mean it to. I will respectfully, refrain from posting on this topic, but will continue to read your posts, hopefully with an open mind.

Varlen (The VMan)