Now, to be sure, conspiratorialists can find heretics who use these modern translations. That is beside the point, however. Why? Because an equal if not greater number of heretics can be found who embrace the KJV. (In the 1800s, in fact, the KJV became the ping-pong ball in English debates over the deity of Christ. Those who argued for the deity of Christ appealed to the Greek text, since the KJV translators had not accurately translated some of the passages.) This is similar to what Peter says in 2 Peter 3:16: “Some things in [Paul’s] letters are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the rest of the Scriptures.” The real issue is whether thoroughly orthodox folks can be found standing behind these modern translations. Yes, they can, and predominantly so. The faith delivered once for all to the saints is not in danger from these new translations. The real danger is in deflecting Christians from our mission in life, to share the good news of Jesus Christ with a dying world, compassionately, and clearly.

So, is there a conspiracy today? My answer may surprise the reader: yes, I believe there is. But the conspiracy has not produced these modern translations. Rather, I believe that there is a conspiracy to cause division among believers, to deflect our focus from the gospel to petty issues, to elevate an anti-intellectual spirit that does not honor the mind which God has created, and to uphold as the only Holy Bible a translation that, as lucid as it was in its day, four hundred years later makes the gospel seem antiquated and difficult to understand.2 It takes little thought to see who is behind such a conspiracy.


1 Erasmus’ text went through five editions. Others took up where he left off, but essentially kept the text virtually the same. One of the editions of Theodore Beza, done in the late 1500s, constituted the text behind the King James NT. By 1550 the third edition of Stephanus’ Greek text included in the margin textual variants from several witnesses, but the text was still largely that of Erasmus. By 1633 this text had gone through some more minor changes, but was stable enough that the edition published by the Elzevirs was called in the preface the “the text now received by all,” or the Textus Receptus. Interestingly, this was more publishers’ hype than consensus, for many if not most NT scholars had long noted the inherent weaknesses in this text. The text published was thus, even in the seventeenth century, more a text of convenience than one of conviction.

2 One of the arguments sometimes heard is that the nonbeliever cannot understand the gospel. 1 Cor 2:12-14 is cited as proof of this statement. The KJV is thus held up as the best Bible because nonbelievers cannot easily understand it! This argument refutes itself, however. First, this is a perversion of 1 Cor 2:12-14; that text essentially says that the nonbeliever does not understand because he does not welcome the gospel. His problem is one of volition more than cognition. Second, if this argument were true, then we might expect a new believer suddenly able to comprehend Elizabethan English. But that is not the case: new believers have just as difficult a time understanding the KJV as nonbelievers. Third, why is it that unbelieving Shakespearean scholars have little difficulty understanding the words of the KJV? Fourth, by way of analogy: the NT was written in Koine Greek or “common” Greek. It was the language of the day--easily understood from Athens to Rome, from Carthage to Jerusalem. Should not our modern translations also be easily understood? To be sure, some of the concepts are not easily grasped, even for mature believers (Peter said as much about Paul’s writings). But why make the language a stumbling block? The cross alone should be the stumbling block. It is sufficient.

By:
Daniel B. Wallace , Th.M., Ph.D.

-------------------------------------------------

Our real problem is if we know the difference in the different translations and put them together and everybody knows the differences and proclaims Jesus Christ the Son of God still, then it is not the translations that are the evidences for the right translation but the people of God, son's and therefore Heirs and fellow life of Christ believers that are protecting the Word by the Spirit of God. Where is the Problem, its letting all that would cause descention in the Body of Christ because of translations become the division among us.

Let us embrace the Christ that is in us and listen to the Holy Spirit teach us about Him. WE must learn Christ and anytime Christ is watered down or taken away from, be it translations of the Bible or books that man has written about everything from faith to human intellect and Grace intermingled with Law, we must stop it and all be of one Mind. God knows what He is doing. Let us just be His Instruments to reveal the mystery of Christ to the World and perfect revelation in His Word. Colossians 1:27-29 to whom God was pleased to make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory: whom we proclaim, admonishing every man and teaching every man in all wisdom, that we may present every man perfect in Christ; whereunto I labor also, striving according to his working, which worketh in me mightily.

In Christ: Phillip

_________________
Phillip

_________________
Mike Balog

Adam,

I would like to reply to your question.

The theory behind the Byzantine texts being better, though they are not as old as the Alexandrian is this:

You are a scribe who is using and copying manuscripts at the same time. If you get ahold of a manuscript that has errors while you are so carefully copying the truth, what do you do with them? You make sure that erroneous copies do not get into circulation by burning any erroneous text someone gives you. If you don't, you are wasting your time making sure that the truth is preserved, word for word. So just as it is your responsiblity to copy accurately, it is your responsibility to safeguard the accurate copy.

Meanwhile, you are opening and closing these scrolls to study the Word for yourself, or the people that get their hands on your work are doing this. Studying, rolling and unrolling. After a while of hands-on use, you can imagine that a text that has been in use is not going to last as long because it will be worn out. So a scribe will make copies of the text you have painstakingly copied, because the text he gets his hands on will be wearing out. So a good copy will most likely be worn out.

People would pay big, big money even for a page of the Bible. You can bet they are going to use it and wear it out. It is not going to collect dust (where your treasure is, there your heart will be, also).

Following this logic, the best texts are going to be in circulation, and be the quickest texts to be worn out. So the fact alone that a text is just older doesn't qualify it as better. An older text may be better than a newer, but older doesn't automatically qualify it as such. So as a copyist, a manuscript that is falling apart is just going to add confusion. So the true copy is disposed of once it is weathered beyond recognition. While the copies of this 'just disposed of' copy will not be as old, they are still true copies.

So while one can't say automatically that the Codex Sinaiticus is false because it was written in the 300's, neither can we say it is better because it was written in the 300's. There is just as strong an argument against an older manuscript when time is brought in as evidence. The question can just as easily be, 'Why wasn't the text being used and copied (worn out through copying and hours of study).'

The same goes for the Codex Vaticanus. Older doesn't qualify automatically as better. No, I am not a Alexandrian manuscript fan, but in all fairness and honesty, someone of either persuasion, Byzantine or Alexandrian, cannot use age as the blanket of superiority.

Hope this helps.

_________________
Hal Bachman

Stever posts:

I have been providing examples of the difference between the two texts (The Textus Receptus versus the Sinaiticus Aleph & Vaticanus B). I truly hope that all those with an open mind can see that there is quite a difference, especially in regards to the doctrine that makes the difference between the Catholic Church and the Christian Church. The Doctrine of the Catholic Church is error, while the Doctrine of the Christian Church used to be truth.

If there is no dirrerence between the two doctrines, then what on earth was the reformation all about? Was it just a waste of time, and really a non-event, or was it the most important event in history, other than the incarnation and resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead?

I posted this once before. I have to assume that many on this thread did not read it. It goes into detail about what took place when Erasmus did his work, and is well worth your time. It sheds light on the two distinct texts that have created the Bible. #1)The Textus Receptus for the Christian Bible; #2)the Sinaiticus Aleph & Vaticanus B (Vaticanus as in "Vatican")that created the Catholic Bible, and are the basis for all of the newer Christian (not Catholic) Bible Versions as well:

Ancient Greek Manuscripts

It is true that several thousand mss have been discovered since 1611. This is the major factor that has been used to justify to the church at large the need for a major revision of the King James. It seems logical that if a vast amount of data not available to the King James translators has been brought to life – these new materials must be considered. This especially seems reasonable as some of these mss were dated between 350-380 A.D. whereas Erasmus' five mss were from the 10th to 15th centuries.

Admittedly this rhetoric seems very compelling. However, of the several thousand manuscripts discovered since 1611, the great majority (90-95%) agree with the Greek text of those five mss which Erasmus used! Nevertheless, the new translations are rife with footnotes informing the reader that "the oldest, the best manuscripts read such and such" as opposed to the King James. But is it not devastating to realize that what has been kept from the church at large is the fact that the vast majority (c.90-95%) of these more recent finds read the same as the Traditional Text which underlies the Reformers Bibles and the King James translation?

The Alexandrian manuscript ("A") arrived in London in 1627. Consequently, we often hear how unfortunate that was for the King James translators as it arrived sixteen years too late for their use. Being untrue, this serves as an example of the unreliable manner in which most of the history concerning the Authorized Version is reported. In the first place, Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus Aleph were well known not only to translators of the King James but to Erasmus. The Old Testament portion of Vaticanus was printed in 1587 so the King James translators in 1604 knew all about Vaticanus insofar as the Old Testament was concerned.

Thus the men working on the 1611 publication of the King James Bible knew the variant readings in Vaticanus B and since they knew about B, they already knew about Sinaiticus and its variant readings even though the first portion of it was not discovered until 1844 (the remainder in 1859) as the two of them read so similarly. In fact, the translators of 1611 had available all the variant readings of those vaunted manuscripts – AND THEY REJECTED THEM! They also knew the readings of the codices of Alexandrinus A, B, C and D (the "old uncials"), where they differed from the Received Text AND THEY DENOUNCED THEM ALL.

How can this be so? The readings of those much boasted manuscripts recently made available are essentially the same as The Reformers knew all about the variant readings of the Vulgate and they rejected them which is the same thing as rejecting Origen. In rejecting Origen, they rejected Codex Vaticanus as it was copied from his work. Thus, the Reformers had all the material necessary for the task at their disposal.

As to the often heard claim that since much of the newly discovered material was older than that used by Erasmus and subsequently the Reformers, they were more reliable, the reader is reminded that the mighty Apostle Paul testified to the corruption of the Word in his day. HENCE "OLDEST" IS NOT NECESSARILY THE BEST.

Furthermore, Erasmus was in regular correspondence with Professor Paulus Bombasius, the Papal librarian, who sent him any variant readings which he desired. In fact, in 1533, a correspondent of Erasmus (a Catholic priest named Juan Sepulveda) sent Erasmus 365 selected readings from Vaticanus B as proof of its superiority to the Textus Receptus. He offered to make the entire document available to Erasmus for use in his latest edition of the Textus Receptus. However, Erasmus rejected the readings of the Vatican manuscript because he considered from the massive evidence of his day that the Textus Receptus data was correct. THUS ERASMUS KNEW ABOUT VATICANUS NEARLY ONE HUNDRED YEARS BEFORE THE KING JAMES BIBLE EVER SAW THE LIGHT OF DAY!

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

This is the real deal, brothers and sisters in the Lord. There is a substantial difference between the two texts. The difference between Catholic Christianity from Rome, with all of its false doctrine, and the need for a Priest to "confess our sins to", as well as worshiping Mary as a "co-redemptrix" with Christ and praying to her, rather than Jesus, the artifical creation of "Purgatory", as well as the biggest insult to Jesus Christ-the creation of a Pope. A Pope that has given himself the power to change the doctrine of the Bible for whatever he feels to be doctrine ***.

Also,lest we foget, the creation of a "Priesthood" (my bible tells me that all believers are Priests and have access to the very throne room of heaven) that is supposedly "celibate", only to find out that, in America for sure, many are actually homosexuals that prey on the young. When these deeds have been exposed, the guilty party is protected by Rome. This is all error, every bit of it, and is only found in the Catholic Church because the text that they relied on to create their Bible is the same text that Erasmus (as well as Stephanus and others) rejected as spurious, and full of error.

Now, fast forward to today. With all of the newer versions that Christians are relying on for Doctrine, we have so much doctrinal error that many, many Christians today have no understanding that Jesus Christ is GOD. We have major denominations that ordain openly gay Pastors and Bishops. We have Christians who find no problem in committing adultery and fornication, on a "serial" basis, and still continue going to Church every Sunday and attending Bible study during the week, and truly think they are on their way to heaven. Fornication, adultery, bestiality, sodomy, and homosexualty have been replaced with watered down words that have no meaning in the newer versions--words like "sexual sin". What on earth doest that mean, anyway? Now, pick up the King James, and it is spelled out in detail for child or adult to see--FORNICATION (SEX BEFORE MARRIAGE) ADULTERY (SEX OUTSIDE OF MARRIAGE), EFFEMENIATE (HOMOSEXUALTIY), SODOMY (MALE & FEMALE HOMOSEXUALTIY), BESTIALITY (SEX WITH AN ANIMAL), TO NAME JUST A FEW.

This debate has everything to do with what is wrong in the Church today. The Church today is no longer salt and light to the world and the ungodly. The Church today is becoming part of the world, and part of the ungodly.

God bless,

Stever

*** (from above, in regards to the Pope) The powers of the pope are defined by the Dogmatic Constitution (ch.3, s.8) such that "he is the supreme judge of the faithful, and that in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment" and that "the sentence of the apostolic see (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon" (can. 331 defines the power of the pope as "supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church, and he can always freely exercise this power"). It also dogmatically defined (ch.4, s.9) the doctrine of Papal infallibility, sc. such that

" when the Roman Pontiff speaks ex cathedra, that is, when in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed His church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable."

The Roman Catholic Church teaches that "it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every creature to be united to the Roman Pontiff" (Pope Boniface VIII). This teaching is often summarized by the phrase "extra Ecclesiam nulla salus" (outside the Church exists no salvation), which has been reaffirmed by many popes throughout the centuries. Blessed John XXIII said: "Into this fold of Jesus Christ no man may enter unless he be led by the Sovereign Pontiff, and only if they be united to him can men be saved."

Pope Paul VI also said: "Those outside the Church DO NOT POSSESS THE HOLY SPIRIT. The CATHOLIC CHURCH ALONE IS THE BODY OF CHRIST... and if separated from the Body of Christ he is not one of His members, nor is he fed by His Spirit."






[b]Jerome's Latin Vulgate which finds its foundation in the works of Origen (a heretic) [/b]

Hi Steve,

I read the whooole thing. Interesting. I don't know why there is such a war over this. I guess the eyes of eyes that don't see are so blinded to the Truth of Christ in the Believer that they would accept anything they think would make it easier to read about God. Big difference in reading about and knowing Him.

If I let it my mind would go into a million peaches if it were not for the peace of God. Its got to be getting close to the end.

Good Job Steve.

In Christ: Phillip

_________________
Phillip

Stever posts:

This is the summary, that should put this entire matter of "Which Version" into perspective:

THE INQUISITION
What does this have to do with Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus Aleph? The Roman Catholic Church has tried for years to destroy Protestantism and return all Christendom under Rome's Authority. Millions of people were put to death, not in war, but by various means of torture and murder during the Inquisition. The Roman church, using the Inquisition, made Adolph Hitler look like a piker. Hitler murdered six million Jews – a most heinous sin and crime – but during the Inquisition from just after 1200 to around 1750 A.D. as many as [u][b]SIXTY EIGHT MILLION [/b][/u] HUMAN BEINGS WERE CRUELLY SLAIN, ALL IN THE NAME OF GOD! A sizable number of the slain were themselves Roman Catholics who had been falsely accused for political and selfish motives. IT WAS A BLOOD BATH, A HORROR STORY!

Most of the major wars fought in Europe beginning in the middle 1500's and extending for several centuries were conducted for the purpose of bringing the Protestants back under the dominion of the Pope. Then, in 1870, when it was decided by a portion of the Church to "update" the Bible of the Reformation which had brought about the breaking away from Romanism (that wicked system that had strangled Tyndale and burned his body, [b]that had murdered sixty-eight million people who would not bow to it[/b], that had slaughtered 70,000 people at one time in the St. Bartholomew's day massacre) the Great Whore said in effect: "You Protestants are going to update your Bible? Here, look what we just found on the Vatican shelf. Would you like to use Vaticanus B to assist you toward that end?" Yet the revisors were not even the least suspicious. Is not that amazing? When a similar ploy was tried on Erasmus in 1515, he saw through it. Why should the Vatican suddenly want to help the Reformers? We shall examine why presently.

What then are Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus Aleph? They are two extant (still existing) MSS of the original fifty which EUSEBIUS had copied out for CONSTANTINE beginning in 331 A.D. Of course, Eusebius did not copy them personally but oversaw and supervised the work. B was discovered in 1481 in the VATICAN LIBRARY. Tischendorf, a German text critic, discovered Sinaiticus Aleph in a WASTE BASKET at a MOSASTERY near the foot of Mount Sinai in 1844.

They are derived from Origen's fifth column of the Hexapla and his New Testament. Again, Origen was the "Christian" infidel who deliberately altered Biblical text and, with the aid of fourteen stenographers, changed it to fit his own beliefs.

JEROME AND THE LATIN VULGATE
There is one more piece of the puzzle to be added. Jerome, the hermit of Bethlehem, was commissioned by Pope Damasus to revise the entire Latin Bible. Jerome completed the Gospels around A.D. 384. About 386, he came to Jerusalem under the auspices of the Church at Rome and began to update the Old Latin Bible. What did Jerome use as his standard for this task? Jerome based his Old Testament primarily on the Hebrew text in Origen's Hexapla and admits to using the other columns (his 5th and those of the Ebionites) to "correct" the text. He relied heavily upon Origen's edited New Testament to finish the revision. The entire work was completed c.405. Jerome's Latin Vulgate, although maligned by the Roman church for years, was accepted at the 1546 A.D. Council of Trent as that cult's official "Bible". It is still being used today.

[b]PUT IT ALL TOGETHER, PLEASE[/b]

Now let us review. What is Jerome's Latin Vulgate? It is a version derived from Origen's fifth column and his edited New Testament. What are Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus Aleph? They were taken from Origen's fifth column and his edited New Testament by Eusebius. What was the Greek text used by Westcott and Hort? It was taken directly from Origen as 90% is word for word from Vaticanus B and, of the remaining 10%, about 7% is Sinaiticus Aleph. In other words, Westcott and Hort came to the 1881 Revision Committee, having worked in secret for over twenty years on a Greek text which was derived from two (though mainly from one) of the copies which Eusebius had prepared for Constantine, these manuscripts having been produced from Origen's work! The translation was Origen's sole endeavor, his private interpretation – and we have already examined his beliefs! Westcott and Hort succeeded in getting the committee to accept almost word for word this Greek text, replacing Erasmus' Greek text of the Reformation.
Thus we see that the text of Westcott and Hort, from which Nestle's text is derived and all the modern translations have as their foundation, is the same as the Catholic Vulgate – for Jerome, like Eusebius, relied upon Origen's work! The point being made is that equals of equals are equal. Thus, the readings in the new Protestant Bibles are almost the same as the Roman Bible and most of the passages that militate against much of the Roman heresies and errors are either altered or omitted, greatly facilitating the ecumenical efforts to bring about the return to Rome.

[b]The reader should discern therefore that the Latin Vulgate, Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, the Hexapla, Nestle's Greek text (or the Aland-Nestle26 or UBS3), Jerome, Eusebius, Origen, and WESTCOTT-HORT ARE TERMS FOR IDEAS THAT ARE INSEPARABLE.[/b]
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

I truly hope you actually completely read the post above.

We can all trust the King James Bible, and cannot trust the newer versions (INCLUDING THE NEW KING JAMES).

God bless,

Stever

PS:
[b]The reader should discern therefore that the Latin Vulgate, Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, the Hexapla, Nestle's Greek text (or the Aland-Nestle26 or UBS3), Jerome, Eusebius, Origen, and WESTCOTT-HORT ARE TERMS FOR IDEAS THAT ARE INSEPARABLE.[/b]

Hia Stever, I wasn't trying to be rude to you on my other thread, nor was Chris.

What he said was true for the direction I was hoping to keep it going in .... but I also feel I owe you an apology and an explanation.

I've posted this before a few times since last year ... but just for butting you off that thread "sorta" --- it's worth repeating so you don't feel your words/time or post was wasted.

[b]I LOVE e-sword[/b] and this is why ....

This is Phil 1:9 using the "Parallel" mode, and choosing these four version options ....


GNT-TR - KJV - KJV+ - GNT-TR+


GNT-TR 9 και τουτο προσευχομαι ινα η αγαπη υμων ετι μαλλον και μαλλον περισσευη εν επιγνωσει και παση αισθησει

KJV 9 And this I pray, that your love may abound yet more and more in knowledge and in all judgment;

KJV+ 9 And2532 this5124 I pray,4336 that2443 your5216 love26 may abound4052 yet2089 more3123 and2532 more3123 in1722 knowledge1922 and2532 in all3956 judgment;144

GNT-TR+ 9 και2532 CONJ τουτο5124 D-ASN προσευχομαι4336 V-PNI-1S ινα2443 CONJ η3588 T-NSF αγαπη26 N-NSF υμων5216 P-2GP ετι2089 ADV μαλλον3123 ADV και2532 CONJ μαλλον3123 ADV περισσευη4052 V-PAS-3S εν1722 PREP επιγνωσει1922 N-DSF και2532 CONJ παση3956 A-DSF αισθησει144 N-DSF


If you have the e-sword, you know that you can also use the "Compare" mode and get up to at least 20 versions up there at once to check a verse.

I read any verse I'm studying in the GNT-TR+ version, then find which version best matches that verse, BUT only after getting the definitions and Grammar on that verse first.
Without the Grammar, there's no real way to exegete a verse.

And even though I'm a Textus Receptus nut ... guess which version did best on just this verse.

The World English Bible (WEB) = Phil 1:9 - This I pray, that your love may abound yet more and more in knowledge and all discernment.

That doesn't go to saying that the whole of the WEB is good or the best, but for this one verse it hit it best.

And all because of that last word there #144 is better translated "discernment".

Phi 1:9 -
Judgment (αισθήσει)
Only here in the New Testament. Rev., better, discernment: sensitive moral perception. Used of the senses, as Xenophon: “perception of things sweet or pungent” (“Memorabilia,” i., 4, 5). Of hearing: “It is possible to go so far away as not to afford a hearing” (“Anabasis,” iv., 6, 13). The senses are called αισθήσεις. See Plato, “Theaetetus,” 156. Plato uses it of visions of the gods (“Phaedo,” 111). Compare αισθητήρια senses, Heb_5:14. Discernment selects, classifies, and applies what is furnished by knowledge. VWS

Phi 1:9 -
May abound (perisseuēi). Present active subjunctive of perisseuō, may keep on overflowing, a perpetual flood of love, “yet more and more” (eti mallon kai mallon), but with necessary limitations (river banks), “in knowledge” (en epignōsei, in full knowledge) “and all discernment” (pāsēi aisthēsei). The delicate spiritual perception (aisthēsis, old word from aisthanomai, only here in N.T. as the verb only in Luk_9:45 in N.T.) can be cultivated as in aisthētērion (Heb_5:14) RWP

So that's how I do it. One word at a time, in each verse at a time, from the TR.

I memorize the KJV because it's the one that has the most Greek study aid books numbered to the Strong's and because of the TR.

And why do I do it one word at a time --- BECAUSE I'M A WORSER FANATIC THEN YOU ARE ... Haaa. Only Playing.

Hope this helps to ease any uneasiness you felt.


And then here's Barnes Notes on that one very neat and sweet verse.

Phi 1:9 -
And this I pray - We pray for those whom we love, and whose welfare we seek. We desire their happiness; and there is no way more appropriate of expressing that desire than of going to God, and seeking it at his hand. Paul proceeds to enumerate the blessings which he sought for them; and it is worthy of observation that he did not ask riches, or worldly prosperity, but that his supplications were confined to spiritual blessings, and he sought these as the most desirable of all favors.
That your love may abound ... - Love to God; love to one another; love to absent Christians; love to the world. This is an appropriate subject of prayer. We cannot wish and pray for a better thing for our Christian friends, than that they may abound in love. Nothing will promote their welfare like this; and we had better pray for this, than that they may obtain abundant riches, and share the honors and pleasures of the world.
In knowledge - The idea is, that he wished them to have intelligent affection. It should not be mere blind affection, but that intelligent love which is based on an enlarged view of divine things - on a just apprehension of the claims of God.
And in all judgment - Margin, “sense;” compare the notes at Heb_5:14. The word here means, the power of discerning; and the meaning is, that he wished that their love should be exercised with proper discrimination. It should be in proportion to the relative value of objects; and the meaning of the whole is, that the wished their religion to be intelligent and discriminating; to be based on knowledge, and a proper sense of the relative value of objects, as well as to be the tender affection of the heart.

And then in more CONTEXT ~

[b]Phi 1:8 For God is my record, how greatly I long after you all in the bowels of Jesus Christ.
Phi 1:9 And this I pray, that your love may abound yet more and more in knowledge and in all judgment;
Phi 1:10 That ye may approve things that are excellent; that ye may be sincere and without offense till the day of Christ;
Phi 1:11 Being filled with the fruits of righteousness, which are by Jesus Christ, unto the glory and praise of God. [/b]

Amen. :-D

Dear MeAgain:

If I look at the king James I find:

9. And this I pray, that your love may abound yet more and more in knowledge and in all judgment;

I surely know what abound means. The only word that I'm not certain of in this verse is "judgment". Strongs tells me that in this instance judgment means discernment--judgment:

Strong's Number: 144
Transliterated: aisthesis
Phonetic: ah'-ee-sthay-sis

Text: from 143; perception, i.e. (figuratively) discernment: --judgment.


I would rather stay with the King James, that is tried and true. My jumping around and comparing one version against another, I become more like the "Textural Critic" that I feel has created this whole mess.

What I mean by that, is go to the 3rd chapter of Genesis, where we find the first prophecy of the coming Messiah, Jesus Christ, the seed of the woman.

If you don't actually read this from the KJV, you will miss the entire prophecy. The reason? The "Textural Critics", starting with Origen, have changed the Received Text (or Majority Text) and replaced it with their own Minority Text that completely elimates this prophecy--one of the most important in the Bible.

KJV Genesis 3:15) "And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed: it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel."


"It shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heal." The first Adam proved to be a covenant breaker, and brought sin into the world: God therefore, to secure the second covenant from being broken, puts it into the hands of the second Adam, the Lord from heaven, Jesus Christ.

This is the first prophecy of the Messiah in the Bible, found in the 3rd chapter of Genesis. Now, COMPARE THE ABOVE, FROM THE KJV, WITH THE NIV:

(15) And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he (small h) will crush your head, and you will strike his (small h) heel.

The NIV, the Catholic Bible, as well as all of the other newer versions of the Bible miss this first prophecy of the coming Messiah, that would take away the sin of the world. The Messiah that would crush Satan’s head by taking the keys to death and hell, and the serpent, Satan, who would bruise Christ’s heel. Only in the capital punishment of crucifixion is the heel bruised. Because the person on the cross is gasping for breath, he constantly pushes with his heel, that is nailed against the cross, upward.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

As a Protestant Christian believer, I feel safe with the King James Version.

God bless,

Stever

Hi Steve,

What does this remind you of? NIV: (15) And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he (small h) will crush your head, and you will strike his (small h) heel.

Surely you won't die, for God knows you will be just like Him. The above in the NIV, takes out of Christ's Hands and puts it in ours to overcome and says Satan wins, This puts Christ as man only, not the God Man Jesus Christ.

This is the greatest attack Satan has dared make so far, although he has never stopped trying to make Christ man only. This takes away from the Godly Seed in Mary and Makes Mary the Chosen one, to bring forth just a man. All that is coming against the truth is overwhelming. All the new translations, the gospel of Mary, the gospel of Judas, the D-code, and on and on. I am with Paul.

Galatians 1:6-9 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

Finally; Galatians 1:11-12 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

What is Paul's Gospel? Colossians 1:25-27 Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God; Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints: To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory:

In Christ: Phillip

_________________
Phillip

READ ONLY THE ACIENT GREEK!!!!!!

Anyone for any other version...is of the devil......i dont care if it is in greek IT HAS TO BE ACIENT GREEK!!!!!!!!!!!!

lol ok no......

lets not go to extremes....

Hey here's a question....was King James a christian?

anyway and on the other hand...i read the KJV it is by far the closest to the original greek....and i have little difficulty in reading it. ummm i do recomend the KJV over any other version...and coming from a greek church by far it is the best....although the KJV is not innerant...it has far less mistakes than any other version that i know of.

Having said that....i must say that i do not condemn others for reading easier to read versions...the best out of these is the NKJV.

Theres my 2 cents.

God bless ya!