Bible Problem

[NetChaplain]

Oh boy!

Then this is all wrong?

Was Mark 16:9–20 Originally Part of Mark’s Gospel?

For these reasons I recommend keeping Mark 16:9–20 in the Bible. But it’s probably not from Mark.

www.thegospelcoalition.org

Or This?

The “Strange” Ending of the Gospel of Mark and Why It Makes All the Difference

Scholars agree the Gospel of Mark is the earliest–by several decades, which has profound implications for our understanding of the “Jesus story”

www.biblicalarchaeology.org

You may be correct. For me the jury is still out.

You can only fully trust the KJV and the NKJV. These and only a few others contain the entire Word of God (Mat 4:4). All other modern translations use the same corrupt manuscripts producing the same corrupt translations. If the primary Trinity passage 1Jn 5:7 is omitted, then the translation is from the Alexandrian Text type and not from the Majority Text, which is the only proven source of manuscripts (because it involves the most existing manuscript copies (5000 plus).

The reason why we have these modern translations now and not earlier is due to recently discovering the manuscripts (much Scripture omitted), and the early scribes never used them. They were (and there's only about 3 manuscripts) always rejected from use because they were excessively indifferent from most of the extant manuscripts; and now scholars are noticing these manuscripts are corrupt because of the Gnostics who probably had their hands in their writings.

 

[Josheb]

Though you presented much information here, much of it concerning Fuller being untrustworthy is a fallacy by far!

This op is about one specific "Bible problem." Nothing more.

Problems with the op are not necessarily problems with the Bible. The op's argument asserting there is a "Bible problem" is flawed. It is flawed in several ways. My op-reply summarizes only a a handful (there are others). Sometimes it takes only one flaw to make an argument fatal. This op, imo, contains more than one fatal flaw and NONE of them have anything to do with Fuller's trustworthiness. Just because he may be trustworthy does not mean his argument(s) are scriptural or logical. The same applies to you. And me. And Rella, jeremiah, and everyone else in this conversation. Fuller might be might be untrustworthy, but I did not specifically say that. Either way, you - in defense of this op - must have something of more substance than Fuller.

So go back and re-read what I actually wrote and not what was imagined to have been said because if did not say Fuller was untrustworthy.

 

[Josheb]

Concerning one's Eschatology, it changes not any doctrine of salvation.

That is grossly incorrect.

Soteriology and eschatology often overlap. Pauline soteriology is intrinsically ties to Pauline eschatology! God inspired that overlap; it was not a working of Paul's flesh. This overlap becomes important when reading Dispensationalists because Dispensationalists have a substantively different Christology, a substantively different soteriology, and a substantively different eschatology then everyone else in Christendom.

Fuller may not have been aware of that. Many Dispensationalists don't know it. You may not be aware Dispensationalism teaches these things differently. These things are not specifically the topic of this op but they are related because a bad Christology, a bad soteriology, and a bad eschatology leads to a bad reading of the Bible - Greek or English.

 

[Josheb]

The problem with the spurious manuscripts isn't linguistic Greek, Latin or English, but the fact of omissions of Scripture; and the misapplied interpolations and transpositions of the Gnostic men who had part in the corrupt manuscripts (these manuscripts have evidence all over them of multiple writers). Corrupt manuscripts can only produce corrupt translations!

None of which has anything to do with what I posted.

In most cases there is no difference. Fuller should have said so. Fuller should have taught this. YOU should have posted that because the larger agreement is the whole truth, not the smaller number of errors selectively asserted in neglect of the larger agreement. Logically, what an emphasis on the minority disagreements does is create a construction fallacy: if one mistake exists then the entire thing is wrong and worthless.

If we deny the corruption of Bibles that have been produced, we are ignorant in textual criticism!

I completely agree and nothing I posted should in any way be construed to say otherwise.


Now...


Can you address what I actually posted in Post #194, or not?


And are we to understand this op as an argument for KJVOism or not? Are you espousing KJVOism?

 

[NetChaplain]

This op is about one specific "Bible problem." Nothing more.

Problems with the op are not necessarily problems with the Bible. The op's argument asserting there is a "Bible problem" is flawed. It is flawed in several ways. My op-reply summarizes only a a handful (there are others). Sometimes it takes only one flaw to make an argument fatal. This op, imo, contains more than one fatal flaw and NONE of them have anything to do with Fuller's trustworthiness. Just because he may be trustworthy does not mean his argument(s) are scriptural or logical. The same applies to you. And me. And Rella, jeremiah, and everyone else in this conversation. Fuller might be might be untrustworthy, but I did not specifically say that. Either way, you - in defense of this op - must have something of more substance than Fuller.

So go back and re-read what I actually wrote and not what was imagined to have been said because if did not say Fuller was untrustworthy.

The omissions of the modern translations speak for themselves, and there's nothing good they can say; except for what truth they do have, but it's highly mixed with corrupted doctrines (like rat poison, 90% cornmeal and 10% arsenic). The omissions are the worse corruption because they can't claim to be the entire Word (Mat 4:4); and they also are laced with interpolations and transpositions of Scripture, resulting is a different thought line than the Traditional Bibles.

 

[NetChaplain]

That is grossly incorrect.

Eschatology is just doctrine relating to the finality of a dispensation. What one believes concerning this has no effect on one's salvation.

 

[NetChaplain]

None of which has anything to do with what I posted.

In most cases there is no difference. Fuller should have said so. Fuller should have taught this. YOU should have posted that because the larger agreement is the whole truth, not the smaller number of errors selectively asserted in neglect of the larger agreement. Logically, what an emphasis on the minority disagreements does is create a construction fallacy: if one mistake exists then the entire thing is wrong and worthless.

I completely agree and nothing I posted should in any way be construed to say otherwise.


Now...


Can you address what I actually posted in Post #194, or not?


And are we to understand this op as an argument for KJVOism or not? Are you espousing KJVOism?

You have a lot of material in #194 and would need to be subject-specific. Concerning KJVism, people are smart to keep with it, even though they may not know that it is the only translation (and others like it) that contains the plenary of the Word. The Critical Text (Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus codices) never the the light of day and was never used until recently (except it's purported that the Vaticanus was used by the Vatican when Jerome was trying to hide the Greek into Latin for the Pope). They were rejected by early scribes as being excessively indifferent from the majority of extant manuscripts and thus fell into disuse for 1500 years, until they were recently discovered; which answers to why these translations are new and not from a much earlier time.

 

[Josheb]

You can only fully trust the KJV and the NKJV.

No, neither translation can be fully trusted.

The KJV is one of the few translations that teaches there is an "end of the world," (Mt. 13:49) and it does so because it mistranslates "aionos" as "world." when the Greek should be translated "age." The link I just provided shows the word is "aionos," and not "kosmos," AND that link shows the Greek is uniform in all the sampled manuscripts, include Westcott and Hort! Not only does the KJV translate that incorrectly from the Greek in this verse; it also does so throughout the entirety of scripture, even when it is clear the writer is not talking about the world ending.

The KJV teaches a bad eschatology.

The KJV also renders "agape" as "charity" (1 Cor. 13:4-8). This is well-known and easily corrected but the protectors of the KJV refuse to correct this mistake, even though the error is objectively apparent. The argument "charity" is synonymous with agape love is utterly false and appeals to what charity meant 400 years ago are likewise fallacious. Charity does not mean love. Since the greatest two commands God ever spoke are to love God and love others the KJV translation of 1 Corinthians 13 corrupts THE two greatest commands of God! Here again there is no deviation among the Greek manuscripts.

The KJV teaches bad theology.

The KJV translation of Deuteronomy 33:14 says the bull's horns are like a unicorn's! The Hebrew never says any such thing. Not only does the KJV mistranslate and thereby misconstrue the bull's horns, but it also implicitly teaches the existence of mythical creatures (Hebrews of the Pentateuch did not believe in a thing called a unicorn. The "unicorn" was first mentioned centuries later in the 4th century, not in the 14th-13th when Moses wrote Deuteronomy).

In 1 Timothy 3:16 the KJV states "God was manifested in the flesh," but the Greek is "hos," (who) not "theos," (God). Here there are some differences among the Greek manuscripts but not a single one of them says theos. They ALL say hos. Jesus is God, but that does not change the fact the KJV did not translate the Greek correctly in 1 Tim. 3:16.

In Romans 8:6 the KJV translates the Greek "sarkos," which literally means "flesh" as "carnal." The Greek literally states, "mind of flesh," and there's no reason to translate the Greek other than as stated. Here again ALL the Greek manuscripts agree, and it is the KJV that has departed from the uniformity of the Greek. Not only does the KJV render the sarkos incorrectly, but the KJV does not render Romans 8:6's sarkos differently than all the other sarkoses used in scripture. The KJV is not even consistent with itself in Romans 8:6. It takes that one sarkos and translates it differently than all its other examples!

The KJV teaches a bad hamartiology.




These are only a few examples of the many, many translation errors in the KJV. There are scores of them. The KJV cannot be fully trusted, and it most definitely cannot be trusted over the Greek. In every single one of these examples most of the modern translations are markedly, observably, objectively more trustworthy.

 

[Rella]

You can only fully trust the KJV and the NKJV. These and only a few others contain the entire Word of God (Mat 4:4). All other modern translations use the same corrupt manuscripts producing the same corrupt translations. If the primary Trinity passage 1Jn 5:7 is omitted, then the translation is from the Alexandrian Text type and not from the Majority Text, which is the only proven source of manuscripts (because it involves the most existing manuscript copies (5000 plus).

The reason why we have these modern translations now and not earlier is due to recently discovering the manuscripts (much Scripture omitted), and the early scribes never used them. They were (and there's only about 3 manuscripts) always rejected from use because they were excessively indifferent from most of the extant manuscripts; and now scholars are noticing these manuscripts are corrupt because of the Gnostics who probably had their hands in their writings.

I truly feel so dumb.... primarily with 1 John 5

I note the Mathew 4:4 in 6 translations. The Same for the 1John 5:7 and included verse 8 as well.

Also my English/Greek Interlinear for both.

I am scrapping my scraping NASB95 for avoiding the trinity ... or a mention of into one... in the 1John (see below)

At least I still have my interlinear....

maybe
because KJV or NKJV and the Greek/English interlinear word 1 John 5:8 differently from each other...

I simply cannot accept KJV as my go to bible. But I will the NKJV as they corrected what King Jimmy's men initially got wrong.

Mathew 4:4

King James

But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proccdeth out of the mouth of God


New King James

4 But He answered and said, “It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.’ ”

NASB95

4 But He answered and said, “It is written, ‘Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God.’” (The same unless you take issue with on and not in!)

LSV

4But He answering said, “It has been written: Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word coming forth from the mouth of God.”
(again we have on and not in)

NLT

4 But Jesus told him, “No! The Scriptures say, ‘People do not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.’ ” (And here we have the introduction of by)

For comparison the Greek/English Interlinear states Mathew 4:4 as
( Which is another by)

5 But answering He said It has been written Not by bread alone shall live the man but by every word coming out of [the] mouth of God

__________________

The following 6 entries tell a differing in presentation and I agree that not emphasizing the Trinity by at least stating the 3 are one
is a non starter... and not worthy of time

1John 5:7

King James

7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

verse 8, included because NASB95 combined the two back to back.

8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.


New King James

7 For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one.

8 And there are three that bear witness on earth: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree as one.

NASB95

7 For there are three that testify:
8 the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.
( So far off... I wont ever read them again.


LSV
7because [there] are three who are testifying [[in Heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one;

8and [there] are three who are testifying in the earth]]: the Spirit, and the water, and the blood, and the three are into the one.

NLT
7 So we have these three witnesses —

8 the Spirit, the water, and the blood—and all three agree.
Greek/English Interlinear
7. For three are the ones
bearing witness in the heaven, the Father, the word, and the Holy Spirit, and these the three one are.

8. And three are the ones bearing witness on the earth , the Spirit, and the water,and the blood, and the three in the one are.

 

[Josheb]

I truly feel so dumb.... primarily with 1 John 5

I note the Mathew 4:4 in 6 translations. The Same for the 1John 5:7 and included verse 8 as well.

Also my English/Greek Interlinear for both.

I am scrapping my scraping NASB95 for avoiding the trinity ... or a mention of into one... in the 1John (see below)

At least I still have my interlinear....

maybe
because KJV or NKJV and the Greek/English interlinear word 1 John 5:8 differently from each other...

I simply cannot accept KJV as my go to bible. But I will the NKJV as they corrected what King Jimmy's men initially got wrong.

Mathew 4:4

King James

But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proccdeth out of the mouth of God


New King James

4 But He answered and said, “It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.’ ”

NASB95

4 But He answered and said, “It is written, ‘Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God.’” (The same unless you take issue with on and not in!)

LSV

4But He answering said, “It has been written: Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word coming forth from the mouth of God.”
(again we have on and not in)

NLT

4 But Jesus told him, “No! The Scriptures say, ‘People do not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.’ ” (And here we have the introduction of by)

For comparison the Greek/English Interlinear states Mathew 4:4 as
( Which is another by)

5 But answering He said It has been written Not by bread alone shall live the man but by every word coming out of [the] mouth of God

__________________

The following 6 entries tell a differing in presentation and I agree that not emphasizing the Trinity by at least stating the 3 are one
is a non starter... and not worthy of time

1John 5:7

King James

7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

verse 8, included because NASB95 combined the two back to back.

8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.


New King James

7 For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one.

8 And there are three that bear witness on earth: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree as one.

NASB95

7 For there are three that testify:
8 the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.
( So far off... I wont ever read them again.


LSV
7because [there] are three who are testifying [[in Heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one;

8and [there] are three who are testifying in the earth]]: the Spirit, and the water, and the blood, and the three are into the one.

NLT
7 So we have these three witnesses —

8 the Spirit, the water, and the blood—and all three agree.
Greek/English Interlinear
7. For three are the ones
bearing witness in the heaven, the Father, the word, and the Holy Spirit, and these the three one are.

8. And three are the ones bearing witness on the earth , the Spirit, and the water, and the blood, and the three in the one are.

What do you make of the fact I can show errors in the KJV and you can show errors in other translations? Have you ever looked for errors in the KJV?

 

[Rella]

What do you make of the fact I can show errors in the KJV and you can show errors in other translations? Have you ever looked for errors in the KJV?

Yes, that is why I will not go there. Ill go with no bible before I trust anything Jimmy's men wrote.

Another forum I was on had an extensive and exhaustive debate on the KJV.

 

[Josheb]

Yes, that is why I will not go there. Ill go with no bible before I trust anything Jimmy's men wrote.

Another forum I was on had an extensive and exhaustive debate on the KJV.

"Anything"? (hyperbole?)

 

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

What do you make of the fact I can show errors in the KJV and you can show errors in other translations? Have you ever looked for errors in the KJV?

There's no such thing as a perfect translation. Honestly, "perfect translation" is an oxymoron, especially with a gap between writing and translating of thousands of years.

 

[Josheb]

There's no such thing as a perfect translation. Honestly, "perfect translation" is an oxymoron, especially with a gap between writing and translating of thousands of years.

Preaching to the choir, bro. Tell it to the op.

 

[NetChaplain]

There's no such thing as a perfect translation. Honestly, "perfect translation" is an oxymoron, especially with a gap between writing and translating of thousands of years.

The Word of God is plenary (complete, meaning perfect in content) within the proper manuscript tradition; translations were written by fallible men, thus it stands to reason that all translations have errors, some much less than others.

 

[Rella]

"Anything"? (hyperbole?)

How can I? With all of King Jimmy's using Easter in Acts 12:4.

When Acts 12:4 was written, it was a certainty that Herod did not follow Jesus.

Acts 12

12 Now about that time Herod the king stretched out his hand to harass some from the church. 2 Then he killed James the brother of John with the sword. 3 And because he saw that it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to seize Peter also. Now it was during the Days of Unleavened Bread. 4 So when he had arrested him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four [a]squads of soldiers to keep him, intending to bring him before the people after Passover.

Pay close attention to Now it was during the Days of Unleavened Bread.

I have never in my 50 plus years of bible study read anything that would tie the name Easter to the Days of Unleavened Bread, as if it were a part of the Passover celebration or to signify the end of it.

Yes, I have heard all the arguments for using it ad nauseum.

Especially:

In a sense, it's not wrong, but it's perhaps a bit anachronistic. The actual Greek in that verse says:

ὃν καὶ πιάσας ἔθετο εἰς φυλακήν, παραδοὺς τέσσαρσιν τετραδίοις στρατιωτῶν φυλάσσειν αὐτόν, βουλόμενος μετὰ τὸ πάσχα ἀναγαγεῖν αὐτὸν τῷ λαῷ.
meta to pascha means "after Passover", but the same term, Pascha, is used for Easter in most languages. English and German are peculiar in calling it Easter (or in German, Ostern) rather than using a term derived from Pesach (Hebrew) / Pascha (Greek) for Passover.

If you look at a list of how various languages say Easter (here's an example), you'll find that many, perhaps most, use a term that comes from Pesach/Pascha. In addition, even in English many Eastern Orthodox Churches use the term Pascha instead of Easter.

Sorry... even this does not cut it for me..... Herod was not a Christian. Herod was not a follower of Jesus. Herod was out to get as many disciples and followers as possible. ... WHY would Herod even think to say to keep them in prison until after Easter when he would have done everything possible to be certain Easter/Pascha/Passover (if using that translation) was a fact of their Cristian preaching... if not celebration.

And the Pagan end of things of celebrating Ēostre... for explanation is too far fetched.........

OKAY, I am rambling cause this is a very hot button issue with me and I could write a war and peace length book on why it is so wrong...

IF the KJV is so wrong in this.... then they are wrong elsewhere.....

That might be a good thread..... Bible translations and where they are wrong and why.

 

[Rella]

The Word of God is plenary (complete, meaning perfect in content) within the proper manuscript tradition; translations were written by fallible men, thus it stands to reason that all translations have errors, some much less than others.

But knowing that, does not help those who desire truth.

 

[Josheb]

How can I?

Easily.

Hyperfocus on the errors is not a healthy way to live. Not spiritually, not psychologically, not relationally, not intellectually, not emotionally, not scripturally, not logically. That's sort of the point to my op-reply and dissent with this op. There is much, much, much more that is correct with our translations than incorrect and what is incorrect is nowadays so easily learned that inordinate focus on the errors is ineffective and does not lead to fruitfulness in Christ. The NT writers rarely cited a problem without the godly alternative and that goal invariably fell into the category of truth, not error.

How can you? Easily. It takes a little work, but it is not particularly difficult work. It also solves the problem of self-justifying lone ranger Christianity.

 

[NetChaplain]

But knowing that, does not help those who desire truth.

It's got to be all the truth, and only translations from the Majority Text contain the entire Word. None of the modern translations can claim they have the whole Word, with their multitudinous omissions. They all use the same corrupt briefed text. If 1Jn 5:7 is omitted it is from the Minority, Critical Text; and they contain many omissions (Mat 4:4) and changed many wordings that render many passages to produce a different thought than the traditional Bibles.

 

[Rella]

It's got to be all the truth, and only translations from the Majority Text contain the entire Word. None of the modern translations can claim they have the whole Word, with their multitudinous omissions. They all use the same corrupt briefed text. If 1Jn 5:7 is omitted it is from the Minority, Critical Text; and they contain many omissions (Mat 4:4) and changed many wordings that render many passages to produce a different thought than the traditional Bibles.

Alr8ight,

Then is there a go to list that tells translations from the Majority Text? Or do we need to check all for 1JN5:7 and form our own?