Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

sheep wrecked · (This post was last modified: 11-03-2010 09:07 AM by sheep wrecked.)

< mod note > moved from

http://www.seekgod.ca/forum/showthread.p...51#pid6551
=====================

Vic-

I don't know if this is the place to post this, but based on the rules I understand that as a new poster I shouldn't be starting new threads. If this post is in the wrong place, please feel free to move it or delete it (and if that's the case, I apologize as well).
Anyway, your article endorsing the King James version of the bible had me thinking. Quite honestly, my gut feeling after reading your article was that this was one issue that you might be wrong about... but I definitely wasn't sure.
As so often happens with these things, last night I ran into compelling evidence that now has me convinced that not only were you RIGHT, but that it's a good idea to avoid certain of the other Bible versions.
I believe God was showing me these things.
The first thing I ran into was a youtube video (again I won't post it based on the rules) that used scripture from different Bible versions to make the point that certain versions have been purposely altered to subtly undermine certain essential doctrines. I won't post all of his points, but I will post the one that really jumped out at me:

Luke 11:2

King James Bible
And he said unto them, When ye pray, say, Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth.

New International Version (©1984)
He said to them, "When you pray, say: "'Father, hallowed be your name, your kingdom come.

New Living Translation (©2007)
Jesus said, "This is how you should pray: "Father, may your name be kept holy. May your Kingdom come soon.

English Standard Version (©2001)
And he said to them, “When you pray, say: “Father, hallowed be your name. Your kingdom come.

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
And He said to them, "When you pray, say: 'Father, hallowed be Your name. Your kingdom come.

International Standard Version (©2008)
So he told them, "Whenever you pray you are to say, 'Father, may your name be kept holy. May your kingdom come.

GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
Jesus told them, "When you pray, say this: Father, let your name be kept holy. Let your kingdom come.

American King James Version
And he said to them, When you pray, say, Our Father which are in heaven, Hallowed be your name. Your kingdom come. Your will be done, as in heaven, so in earth.

American Standard Version
And he said unto them, When ye pray, say, Father, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come.

Bible in Basic English
And he said to them, When you say your prayers, say, Father, may your name be kept holy and your kingdom come.

Douay-Rheims Bible
And he said to them: When you pray, say: Father, hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come.

Darby Bible Translation
And he said to them, When ye pray, say, Father, thy name be hallowed; thy kingdom come;

English Revised Version
And he said unto them, When ye pray, say, Father, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come.

Webster's Bible Translation
And he said to them, When ye pray, say, Our Father who art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so on earth.

Weymouth New Testament
So He said to them, "When you pray, say, 'Father may Thy name be kept holy; let Thy Kingdom come;

World English Bible
He said to them, "When you pray, say, 'Our Father in heaven, may your name be kept holy. May your Kingdom come. May your will be done on Earth, as it is in heaven.

Young's Literal Translation
And he said to them, 'When ye may pray, say ye: Our Father who art in the heavens; hallowed be Thy name: Thy reign come; Thy will come to pass, as in heaven also on earth;

As you can see, certain versions leave out that our Father is in heaven. Because I've fallen for similar deceptions in the past, I recognize this one- this is NOT a coincidence. This is a ploy by the enemy to subtly encourage the worship of another father, NOT Jesus Christ of Nazareth's Father, who is the God of Abraham, my Father, Jacob's Father, etc. There were other great points besides this one, by the way, but in the interest of time and space I won't include them.

After I watched this video, I layed down to go to sleep and tried to turn my audio bible on. But for some reason it wouldn't work, so I went to another website and started listening to another audio bible before I drifted off to sleep. Today, I woke up with a familiar slight feeling of confusion and it stayed with me all day. Well, come to find out I was listening to the NIV last night, NOT the KJV. I've been here before, too.

Thanks for that article.

resolute

sheep wrecked · (This post was last modified: 11-03-2010 09:09 AM by sheep wrecked.)

(11-02-2010 09:18 PM)resolute Wrote: Vic-

I don't know if this is the place to post this, but based on the rules I understand that as a new poster I shouldn't be starting new threads. If this post is in the wrong place, please feel free to move it or delete it (and if that's the case, I apologize as well).
Anyway, your article endorsing the King James version of the bible had me thinking. Quite honestly, my gut feeling after reading your article was that this was one issue that you might be wrong about... but I definitely wasn't sure.
As so often happens with these things, last night I ran into compelling evidence that now has me convinced that not only were you RIGHT, but that it's a good idea to avoid certain of the other Bible versions.
I believe God was showing me these things.
The first thing I ran into was a youtube video (again I won't post it based on the rules) that used scripture from different Bible versions to make the point that certain versions have been purposely altered to subtly undermine certain essential doctrines. I won't post all of his points, but I will post the one that really jumped out at me:

Luke 11:2

King James Bible
And he said unto them, When ye pray, say, Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth.

New International Version (©1984)
He said to them, "When you pray, say: "'Father, hallowed be your name, your kingdom come.

As you can see, certain versions leave out that our Father is in heaven. Because I've fallen for similar deceptions in the past, I recognize this one- this is NOT a coincidence. This is a ploy by the enemy to subtly encourage the worship of another father, NOT Jesus Christ of Nazareth's Father, who is the God of Abraham, my Father, Jacob's Father, etc. There were other great points besides this one, by the way, but in the interest of time and space I won't include them.

After I watched this video, I layed down to go to sleep and tried to turn my audio bible on. But for some reason it wouldn't work, so I went to another website and started listening to another audio bible before I drifted off to sleep. Today, I woke up with a familiar slight feeling of confusion and it stayed with me all day. Well, come to find out I was listening to the NIV last night, NOT the KJV. I've been here before, too.

Thanks for that article.

resolute

It was no problem moving your post

I am so encouraged that you found the KJV to be accurate

Lately I have run into so many who want to use the "oldest and best" manuscripts for the NT, which are the corrupt Alexandrian. On that platform, it is questioned that because we don't truly know if the Byzantine TR [received text] Greek manuscripts are superior above the Alexandrian then why do we think the KJV is so right?

I have always used the "test" that the B TR is over 5,000 and the Alexandrian is only 3 which don't agree. Have you done any research into this area? And what is your thoughts on this whole area of analysis on the NT Greek and the preservation issue?

***Vic*** · 11-04-2010, 07:33 PM

HI resolute,

I understand your concerns. I didn't even know there were issues with different versions and we did use the NIV with our children. Yet it was always nagging why some verses wording changed the meaning.

If you get a chance go into the Bible secion under research in my articles and look at the charts--I think there's 5 pages of charts comparing different versions with specific verses on various doctrine. I think you will find it quite helpful.

http://www.seekgod.ca/topicbible.htm > http://www.seekgod.ca/chart.htm > http://www.seekgod.ca/chart1.htm

sheep wrecked · (This post was last modified: 02-17-2011 12:39 PM by sheep wrecked.)

I came across an interesting commentary/discussion on the King James version through an online forum - between two posters. It is a defense of the scholarship behind the translation of the King James as loosely compared to the modern versions [Westcott and Hort dependent].

Quote:Hi Folks,

bibleprotector
> One of the common arguments against the perfection of the King James Bible is that it was made at a time when less manuscript evidence was known, and that studies into texts

Steven
Note though that it is the modern theories that limit textual evidence to a small minority of mss and essentially ignore 99% of the evidences. The textual evidence knowledge in the Reformation era was very strong on all the major Bible texts, Greek manuscripts, and Old Latin and Vulgate manuscripts, and Syriac as well. Plus they were able to consider early church writers and internal evidences in a sound manner, and were extremely familiar with the ECW writings from their personal readings (not from a deficient apparatus that is largely ignored because, even with riggings, the apparatus favors the Received Text readings so frequently).

bibleprotector
> and into the original languages was less developed.

Steven
This we see again and again to be utter nonsense. The learned men were immersed in the Bible languages, speaking, reading, conversing, debating ... today's scholars are confused and buffeted by their usage of atomistic lexicon analysis (as we have seen on this forum and many others).

Then, on issues like style, they come up with arrogant hand-waving harumphs, usually special pleading, even when they are abysmally ignorant about a topic. (e.g. The resurrection appearances in the Gospel of Mark, which is in 99.9% of the Greek, Latin and Syriac mss). While not limited to this forum, by any means, we know the drill from here and there.

bibleprotector
> Third, and most importantly, if we allow for the argument that in the days of the making of the Textus Receptus, and in the translation of the English Bible, that there was no developed understanding of textual types and textual families, and all that was relied upon was what was available and understood, then this must be the means of God's Providence to provide His Word perfectly.

Steven
Since textual type theories are largely a charade, designed a priori and nonsensically to equalize a handful of oddball and ultra-corrupt manuscripts to hundreds of diverse and homogeneous pure and sensible hand-written manuscripts over wide geographical areas. Against all stemmata logic. Thus it is to our benefit not to have a "developed understanding" of a theory that is steeped in deception.

And it is important to mention that these understandings were themselves developed precisely to fabricate alternatives to the Received Text, they did not arise in any sort of natural scholarly manner. And this is especially clear with Westcott and Hort.

Also the paradigms developed and utilized have been deficient and to a large extent require an a priori preference for unbelief in the purity and excellence of God's word. That is, the current theories force a chopped, errant, abbreviated text, against the sense and logic and fullness and completeness and harmony and majesty of God's words. Theories of faith and belief (Reformation Bible) versus theories of corruption (modern scientific textcrit).

Shalom,
Steven Avery
Queens, NY

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/whichversi...sage/39207

See Vic's articles on Westcott and Hort [occult] and their affiliation with the modern versions here:

http://www.seekgod.ca/jerusalem2.htm

http://www.seekgod.ca/ghostsociety.htm

sari83 · (This post was last modified: 04-04-2011 09:30 AM by sari83.)

I use the program, PC Bible Study, so I do reference the KJV quite a lot. The bible study program is enormously helpful. With just a couple of clicks I can see the Hebrew/Greek word which the English derived from. Back to the point--The KJV translation is not perfect. Let me explain how I've come to this conclusion.

Recently, I read the biography of the great creation scientist, Sir Isaac Newton. After learning more about his religious beliefs, I was intrigued by the fact that he studied the bible daily, devoting more time to scriptural studies than anything else. He wrote a manuscript entitled, An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture. The verses directly in question are: 1 John 5:7 & 1 Timothy 3:16. Newton states that the corruptions of these verses took place through small allterations of the Greek text.

Using PC Bible Study I'm able to see that he's correct in his assessment of 1 Timothy 3:16. Example:

1 Tim 3:16
And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
(KJV)

"God was manifest in the flesh" The word transliterated into God in this verse is actually, #3739 hos, (not theos # 2361)

3739 hos (hos);

including feminine he (hay); and neuter ho (ho); probably a primary word (or perhaps a form of the article 3588); the relatively (sometimes demonstrative) pronoun, who, which, what, that:

KJV-- one, (an-, the) other, some, that, what, which, who (-m, -se), etc. See also 3757.

04-05-2011, 06:39 AM

Modern versions are solely dependent on Egyptian version and must be deleted from King James version.

***Vic*** · 04-05-2011, 10:37 AM

(04-04-2011 09:29 AM)sari83 Wrote: I use the program, PC Bible Study, so I do reference the KJV quite a lot. The bible study program is enormously helpful. With just a couple of clicks I can see the Hebrew/Greek word which the English derived from. Back to the point--The KJV translation is not perfect. Let me explain how I've come to this conclusion.

Recently, I read the biography of the great creation scientist, Sir Isaac Newton. After learning more about his religious beliefs, I was intrigued by the fact that he studied the bible daily, devoting more time to scriptural studies than anything else. He wrote a manuscript entitled, An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture. The verses directly in question are: 1 John 5:7 & 1 Timothy 3:16. Newton states that the corruptions of these verses took place through small allterations of the Greek text.

Using PC Bible Study I'm able to see that he's correct in his assessment of 1 Timothy 3:16. Example:

1 Tim 3:16
And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
(KJV)

"God was manifest in the flesh" The word transliterated into God in this verse is actually, #3739 hos, (not theos # 2361)

3739 hos (hos);

including feminine he (hay); and neuter ho (ho); probably a primary word (or perhaps a form of the article 3588); the relatively (sometimes demonstrative) pronoun, who, which, what, that:

KJV-- one, (an-, the) other, some, that, what, which, who (-m, -se), etc. See also 3757.

HI Sarah,

How come in all your personal studies and everything you post here is related to undermining the NT, and the denying the divinity of Christ? I am quite serious in asking that, because you have consistently posted sources that do just that. And you said you have done all this personal study yourself. So why aren't you cross referencing Scriptures and allowing the Scriptures to prove themselves, instead of going by heresies?

This is some info from one of my articles>

Newton was an occultist. He was religious, but was also heavily involved in Hermetic alchemy [magic and trying to turn base metals into gold; find the elixir of life-so they could live indefinitely] and the Sacred Craft. He was involved in numerology and other occult practices.

Newton was a well-known Rosicrucian, eventually becoming the "Grand Helmsman of the Priory Notre Dame de Sion."(3) He esteemed Noah more than Moses as the ultimate source of esoteric wisdom. (4)

He denied the divnity of Jesus Christ; denied the concept of the Godhead aka three in one, trinity, which some call the persons of the Godhead..

He was in agreement with the Cathars and supported them in their beliefs which "stressed the supremacy of 'gnosis', or direct knowledge, over faith."(6) Sir Isaac Newton also doubted the authenticity of the New Testament. (7)

Newton was also reported to have been supportive of a group called the Socinians, a religious group who believed that Jesus was divine by office rather than by nature. They and Newton were reportedly Arian in nature (the doctrine of Arius of Alexandria,4th c.;...

>>>>>>

In other words, just because he said something was so, did not make it so. The arguments of 1 John 5:7 and 1 Timothy 3:16 are long and ugly. Because those who deny Christ need to attempt to destroy the Scriptures that clearly state who He is.

You said >"God was manifest in the flesh" The word transliterated into God in this verse is actually, #3739 hos, (not theos # 2361)>>>

It's 2316 in Thayers or Strong's and it's Theos. Saying it's been changed doesn't mean it's been changed, except by Newton and other's of that mindset.

If one researches the I John 5:7,8 controversy you will see that, and this info sources many articles on the net...

1John 5:7,8 is an integral part of Scripture, and it matches the doctrine John wrote in the Gospel of John.

The earliest references to it would be Tertullian (160-230), Cyprian (200-258), Priscillian (d. 385), Cassiodorus (480-570), Augustine (5th century), Athanasius (4th century) and Jerome (4th century). (1) It appears in the Vulgate. (2) It also appears in Manuscript 61 and Codex Ravianus. Stephanus found it in 9 of his 16 manuscripts. (3)

Its attack and deletion from some manuscripts no doubt arises from the heresies in the early church, especially Arians. Those who oppose the inclusion of I John 5:7 are supporting the Unitarians and Jehovah Witnesses while ignoring the overwhelming mass of manuscript evidence.

200 AD - Tertullian's quote is debated, but he may well be referring to the phrase found only in 1 John 5:7 when he says: "And so the connection of the Father, and the Son, and of the Paraclete (Holy Ghost) makes three cohering entities, one cohering from the other, WHICH THREE ARE ONE entity, not one person. Just as it is said "I and the Father are one entity" refers to the unity of their substance, not to oneness of their number."

250 AD - Cyprian of Carthage, wrote, "And again, of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost it is written: "And the three are One" in his On The Lapsed, On the Novatians. Note that Cyprian is quoting and says "IT IS WRITTEN, And the three are One." He lived from 180 to 250 A.D. and the scriptures he had at that time contained the verse in question. This is at least 100 years before anything we have today in the Greek copies. If it wasn't part of Holy Scripture, then where did he see it WRITTEN?

350 AD - Priscillian referred to it [Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, Academia Litterarum Vindobonensis, vol. xviii, p. 6.]

350 AD - Idacius Clarus referred to it [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 62, col. 359.]

350 AD - Athanasius referred to it in his De Incarnatione

380 AD - Priscillian in Liber Apologeticus quotes "and there are three which give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one in Christ Jesus."

Likewise, the anti-Arian work compiled by an unknown writer, the Varimadum (380 AD) states: "And John the Evangelist says, . . . “And there are three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one”. (Varimadum 90:20-21).

398 AD - Aurelius Augustine used it to defend Trinitarianism in De Trinitate against the heresy of Sabellianism

415 AD - Council of Carthage. The contested verse (1 John 5:7) is quoted at the Council of Carthage (415 A. D.) by Eugenius, who drew up the confession of faith for the "orthodox." It reads with the King James. How did 350 prelates in 415 A.D. take a verse to be orthodox that wasn't in the Bible? It had to exist there from the beginning. It was quoted as "Pater, VERBUM, et Spiritus Sanctus".

450-530 AD. Several orthodox African writers quoted the verse when defending the doctrine of the Trinity against the gainsaying of the Vandals. These writers are:

A) Vigilius Tapensis in "Three Witnesses in Heaven"

B) Victor Vitensis in his Historia persecutionis [Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, Academia Litterarum Vindobonensis, vol. vii, p. 60.]

C) Fulgentius in "The Three Heavenly Witnesses" [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 65, col. 500.]

500 AD - Cassiodorus cited it [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 70, col. 1373.]

527 AD - Fulgentius in Contra Arianos stated: "Tres sunt qui testimonium perhibent in caelo. Pater, Verbum et Spiritus, et tres unum sunt."

550 AD - The "Speculum" has it [The Speculum is a treatise that contains some good Old Latin scriptures.]

636 AD - Isidor of Seville quotes the verse as it stands in the KJB.

750 AD - Wianburgensis referred to it

800 AD - Jerome's Vulgate has it [It was not in Jerome's original Vulgate, but was brought in about 800 AD from good Old Latin manuscripts.] It is also in the Clementine Vulgate today.

157-1400 AD. Waldensian (that is, Vaudois) Bibles have the verse.

The "Waldensian," or "Vaudois" Bibles stretch from about 157 to the 1400s A.D. The fact is, according to John Calvin's successor Theodore Beza, that the Vaudois received the Scriptures from missionaries of Antioch of Syria in the 120s A.D. and finished translating it into their Latin language by 157 AD. This Bible was passed down from generation, until the Reformation of the 1500s, when the Protestants translated the Vaudois Bible into French, Italian, etc. This Bible carries heavy weight when finding out what God really said. It's believed the Vaudois were the descendants of the true Christians, and that they preserved the Christian faith for the Bible-believing Christians today.

Many critics of this passage like to say that 1 John 5:7 occurs in no ancient language version except the Latin. The passage is found in the Latin Vulgate, but it is also in some Old Latin manuscripts, and the Old Latin dates from around 200 A.D. ******This is 150 years before anything we have in Greek copies.***** In addition to this, the newest UBS critical text has now admitted that it is found in some Armenian manuscripts.

Michael Maynard, M.L.S. in his 382 page book "A History of the Debate over 1 John 5:7-8" quotes from Gregory of Nazianzus (390 AD) who remarks concerning this verse in his Theological Orations: . . . "he has not been consistent in the way he has happened upon his terms; for after using Three in the masculine gender he adds three words which are neuter, contrary to the definitions and laws which you and your grammarians have laid down. For what is the difference between putting a masculine Three first, and then adding One and One and One in the neuter, or after a masculine One and One and One to use the Three not in the masculine but in the neuter, which you yourselves disclaim in the case of Deity?"

Mr. Maynard concludes: "Thus Gregory of Nazianzus objected to the omission of 1 John 5:7."

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Can you comprehend what other verses come into play if you deny these 3 verses, which then means you must deny every other verse that supports the divinity of Christ?

Here's a small sample:

Phil 2:5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: 6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: 7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

John 1:1 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

He that hath seen me hath seen the Father." John 14:9

Col 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

Mt 16:15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? 16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. 17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

Luk 1:67 Now his father Zacharias was filled with the Holy Spirit, and prophesied, saying: 68 Blessed be the Lord God of Israel; for he hath visited and redeemed his people,
69 And hath raised up an horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David;
70 As he spake by the mouth of his holy prophets, which have been since the world began:
71 That we should be saved from our enemies, and from the hand of all that hate us;
72 To perform the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember his holy covenant;
73 The oath which he sware to our father Abraham,
74 That he would grant unto us, that we being delivered out of the hand of our enemies might serve him without fear,
75 In holiness and righteousness before him, all the days of our life.
76 And thou, child, shalt be called the prophet of the Highest: for thou shalt go before the face of the Lord to prepare his ways;

John 1: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
Joh 1:9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.
Joh 1:10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
Joh 1:11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
Joh 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
Joh 1:13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
Joh 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
Joh 1:15 John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me.
Joh 1:16 And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace.
Joh 1:17 For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.
Joh 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

1 John 5:11 And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.
12 He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.

1Th 1:3 Remembering without ceasing your work of faith, and labour of love, and patience of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ, in the sight of God and our Father

John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Phil 2:5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: 6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: 7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: 8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

the likeness of > image of >>> in fashion > everything about a man is what Jesus was

He did not cease to be God

1Corinthians 15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. 46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. 47 The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.

And there are many many more verses not only in the NT but the OT that become destroyed by lack of faith and heresy. If you have spent so much time finding things by those who do not believe, perhaps you should be studying the writings of those who defend the Truth of the Word of God. Then you would learn about God and Jesus Christ and who they are.

1Jn 2:21 I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth.
1Jn 2:22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.
1Jn 2:23 Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.

1Jn 4:2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
1Jn 4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

1Jn 4:13 Hereby know we that we dwell in him, and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit.
1Jn 4:14 And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world.
1Jn 4:15 Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God.

2Jn 1:7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.
2Jn 1:8 Look to yourselves, that we lose not those things which we have wrought, but that we receive a full reward.
2Jn 1:9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.

Joh 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
Joh 14:7 If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.

sari83 · (This post was last modified: 04-05-2011 11:42 AM by sari83.)

Quote--Vic

"In other words, just because he said something was so, did not make it so. The arguments of 1 John 5:7 and 1 Timothy 3:16 are long and ugly. Because those who deny Christ need to attempt to destroy the Scriptures that clearly state who He is.

You said >"God was manifest in the flesh" The word transliterated into God in this verse is actually, #3739 hos, (not theos # 2361)>>>

It's 2316 in Thayers or Strong's and it's Theos. Saying it's been changed doesn't mean it's been changed, except by Newton and other's of that mindset.

End Quote--

I didn't think it was the Word of God that was in question here, but the King James Version of the Word of God. I was simply sharing the fact that Newton's conclusion of 1 Timothy 3:16 is completely accurate. Here's the verse according to the KJV laid out with references from Strong's Concordance:

kai 2532 And
homologoumenos 3672 without controversy
megas 3173 great
esti 2076 is
ho 3588 the
musterion 3466 mystery
ho 3588 of
eusebeia 2150 godliness
hos 3739 God (more accurately, He)
phaneroo 5319 was manifest
en 1722 in
sarx 4561 flesh
dikaioo 1344 justified
en 1722 in
pneuma 4151 spirit
optanomai 3700 seen
aggelos 32 of angels
kerusso 3784 preached
en 1722 unto
ethnos 1484 gentiles
pisteuo 4100 believed on
en 1722 in
kosmos 2889 world
analambano 353 received up
en 1722 into
doxa 1391 glory

Rose of Shushan · (This post was last modified: 04-05-2011 02:10 PM by Rose of Shushan.)

Since I am not a Bible Scholar and don't know any greek I can only comment on what I am seeing in this thread.It seems that its not the King James that is supposedly at fault here but the manuscript underlying it? Am I correct Sari? Since the King James has theos, is it then that the manuscript from where Newton got his heos from is different to the one underlying the KJV?

sari83 · 04-05-2011, 07:15 PM

(04-05-2011 02:09 PM)Rose of Shushan Wrote: Since I am not a Bible Scholar and don't know any greek I can only comment on what I am seeing in this thread.It seems that its not the King James that is supposedly at fault here but the manuscript underlying it? Am I correct Sari? Since the King James has theos, is it then that the manuscript from where Newton got his heos from is different to the one underlying the KJV?

1 Tim 3:16

16 And without controversy great is the of godliness:
2532 3672 3173 2076 3588 3588 2150
Kaí homologouménoos méga estín tó teés eusebeías

mystery God was manifest in the flesh,
3466 3739 5319 1722 999 4561
musteérion Hós efaneroóthee en sarki

(Interlinear Transliterated Bible. Copyright © 1994, 2003, 2006 by Biblesoft, Inc. All rights reserved. [For more detail see the full copyright page.])