SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
See Opportunities to Serve with SermonIndex
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : The Nestle Greek Text

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 )

 Re: Re: Ccchhhrrriiisss

Dear Cccchhhrrriiisss:

As the years have progressed, I believe that Satan is behind the modern translations. The once great soul winning denominations have been reduced to social clubs by means of modernist translations that question every important doctrine needed to get to heaven.

On this thread I have provided insight into the mindset of Westcott and Hort, who are responsible for the creation of “neutral” Textural Criticism, and in the process of their "Revision Committee" were responsible for swapping the Received Text found in the Protestant Bible for the Minority Text found in the Catholic Bible. Now, when a Protestant Christian opens the NIV, NASB, or any of the "newer" Bible versions, he is in effect opening up the Catholic Bible unawares.

The”analysis” made by you Ccchhhrrriiisss is flawed. We have a Bible, that has been handed down to us by the Disciples & Apostles. It was created in Koine Greek, and the language is a dead language. What does that mean? The meaning of the words are frozen in time. There is no confusion as to the meaning of the words-their meanings are cast in stone and frozen. Ccchhhrrriiisss's example of the Mexicans translating English (which is a living language, where the meaning of words are in a state of flux and change) to Spanish is absolutely absurd and has no relationship to the translation of the Received Texts and what transpired then. The Received Texts were written in Koine Greek, a language that became a "dead language" approximately 200 years after the Cannon was established,and were then translated into Latin & Greek by Erasmus, and then from there translated into English. This English that we find in the King James is 1611 English, and again is locked in time as of 1611. The English language was not changing dramatically at that time as it is today. England controlled much of the World then, and the language was stable. That is why if we pick up an 1828 Noah Websters American Dictionary of the English Language all of the meanings of words that appear in the Kong James at are not quite clear to us today, COME ALIVE TO US. Also, with the Strongs Concordance we can look up the meanings of the Koine Greek words that are found in the New Testament for further clarification.

What I have posted here documents how Origen and others actually changed the Sacred text to conform with their own heresies. This is the “source material” that created the Catholic Bible and is called the minority text.

The fact that Ccchhhrrriiisss has posted what he has (below my post) reveals to me (again) that he has not read or understood what I have posted. His response is like that of person who is deaf, that is not only trying to respond to a speech, but also telling others while standing on the rooftops that what they heard is wrong. YET, HE NEVER REFUTES WHAT HE THINKS THE OTHER PERSON SAYS, HE JUST SAYS, AS LOUD AS HE CAN THAT THE OTHER PERSON IS WRONG, WRONG, WRONG.

Ccchhhrrrriiisss continues to believe that there are no doctrinal differences that really matter between the NIV and all of the other newer versions and the King James Bible. With him, it is all in the “original source material”. I am very well aware of that. To be very clear, I will state it one more time, without the textural proofs that I normally post to back it up---“THERE IS A DIFFERENCE IN THE ORIGINAL SOURCE MATERIAL. THE RECEIVED TEXT IS THE TEXT “RECEIVED” FROM THE DISCIPLES & APOSTLES AND THE “CHURCH”, AND AMOUNTS TO THE VERY WORDS OF GOD. THE “MINORITY” TEXT IS TEXT CREATED BY ORIGEN AND OTHERS THAT BECAME THE CATHOLIC BIBLE. THE PROTESTANT BIBLE HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE RECEIVED TEXT. THE CATHOLIC BIBLE HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE MINORITY TEXT. THEN, AFTER WESTCOTT AND HORT PERFORMED THEIR “WORK”, THEY SWAPPED THE RECEIVED TEXT WITH THE MINORITY TEXT. SO TODAY, WHEN YOU PICK UP THE NIV OR THE NEWER VERSIONS, YOU MIGHT AS WELL HAVE A CATHOLIC BIBLE IN YOUR HANDS.”

I truly pray that this opens eyes and hearts in the understanding of this most important issue-Which Version. I have seen so much doctrinal error, even here on sermon index. 30 years ago, that was not the case. The error was always found with the Cults- the Latter Day Saints, JVH, and others. But today, even Christians are reading Bibles that water down sound Christian Doctrine, found in God's Word.

We do not serve a God who causes confusion by providing us with a different Bible (His WORD) that takes away from understanding his Majesty, and Power and will for our lives. We serve a God who provides us with HIS WORD that teaches us:
2 Timothy 1:6-7 KJV
"6. Wherefore I put thee in remembrance that thou stir up the gift of God, which is in thee by the putting on of my hands.
7. For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind."

God bless,


P.S. Ccchhhrrriiisss, I would be interested in a Scholarly debate of this issue. You are a College man that surely knows how to take two sides of the same issue, and be able to be either for or against the other side, no matter what your own internal bias is, don't you? Go back to my first post in this thread, as well as my first post on Philologos' thread of "Why would anyone still read the King James Bible", and refute what I have posted by documentation and source material, not adjectives. Not words like WRONG, UNWISE OR DISHONEST. Those very adjectives, without source material that can be verified, will provide you with a failing grade!



ccchhhrrriiisss wrote:
Hello Stever...
Let's consider some important doctrinal truths that are attacked by the NIV. You should note that most of these omissions are found in the other new versions also, if you want to compare.

The NIV even refutes the idea that the Bible is the preserved, inspired, Word of God.


P.S. There is more, that I will post later. Can you see the end product of the NIV and the newer versions. It did not happen by accident, but was intended by the Translators, starting with Origen, followed by Eusebius, and then followed by Westcott and Hort. The NIV and the other Newer versions, is there intentional deceit?
God will be the judge of the whole matter very soon.

I do not know how to make this more clear. The NIV was translated from a completely different set of ancient texts than the KJV. It NEVER omitted anything. The fact that a particular word or phrase is omitted is testament to the fact that the bulk of the ancient source texts used for NIV simply did not have them. Thus, it would have been DISHONEST to include them for the sake of tradition (such as some of the ecclesiastical terms that were purposely insisted upon for the KJV).

It is unwise to consider the validity of a translation by using a side-by-side comparison of one translation using another. Why? Because they are only translations of the different [u]sources[/u] that they used. Since different sources were used, why should we expect them to be translated from language to language to language to language exactly the same.

I live in extreme south Texas (about an hour south of Corpus Christi). As an experiment, I recently asked several spanish speaking friends to translate a two-page paper for me. Two of these individuals are graduate students majoring in Spanish. Another was a bilingual education major, minoring in Spanish. And two more were Mexican citizens that are attending college in the United States. A few days later, I received the finished translations. And you know what? Every single one of them was different. While the mass bulk of what they translated was the same -- there were some noticable differences in verbage, grammar and terms. I asked several of them about the differences. They told me that there are often several ways to say the same thing. If this is what we can expect from a latin-based language such as Spanish, what can we expect when translating something into a grammatically complex language like English? And how much more if the source texts that are being translated from are completely different? Would they be exactly the same? Of course not!

Stever, it seems that your real qualm is with the source material -- and not with serious, academic translations like the NIV. The KJV is a wonderful translation. In fact, I personally prefer it as the best source derived from the Textus Receptus. However, the NIV is also a great translation using the other sources. I often like to refer to both of them. This is not to consider one as being vastly superior to the other, but as a way to consider two translations based upon different sources.

I truly believe that it is important that you refrain from making slanderous allegations about translations like the NIV or their translators. You often state as "fact" what is merely your own "opinion" based upon the things that you have studied. You do not know any of the translators of the NIV. Nor do you know any of the translators of the KJV. Nor do you have any source texts to judge. Even if you did, I'm not certain about your expertise with translating such old languages. Therefore, it is impossible for you to determine such things based upon books or webpages that were written using some sort of bias.

Why am I writing this? It is important that people that happen to read your posts realize that there are many other perspectives about this issue. Many of us have seriously studied this issue -- and have simply arrived at a completely different conclusion. Of course, you have every right to state your conclusions. But it is important that you are careful about distinguishing what is [u]your[/u] conclusion -- and what is undeniable [u]fact[/u]. We should do our best to make certain which is which.


 2006/4/30 11:22

Joined: 2006/2/27
Posts: 12
sheffield, UK


This is my first post on this site, though I have been visiting it for some time. I am an evangelical christian with a a bit of a passion for Tozer. A friend of mine, also an evangelical, is very much against many of the newer translations and the text chosen for those translations. I, however, am not completely convinced by some of the arguments against the use of modern textual apparatus. I have studied koine greek, both at an evangelical bible college and a sceptical university as well as the history of textual transmission. I use both the Textus Receptus and the UBS 3 in my studies, but only UBS 3 in my devotions. I'm no expert, but my own feeling is that not all modern versions are are as bad as each other and the KJV does not always do the text jusice (even the Textus Receptus text). I much prefer the NASB's "Only Begotten God" to the KJV's "Only Begotten Son" in John 1:18. Christ's Divinity is forcibly asserted (and it gives a headache to Jehovah's witnesses)as well as maintaining the poetic power of John 1:1. The bible is divinely inspired, but I believe that the people chosen to be the instruments of the Holy Spirit were chosen for a reason. And for me the NASB captures the grandeur of the poetic John (chp 1) better than any other version. Having said that some modern versions go too far. The modern trend of de-genderising scripture is, for me, disturbing since it is a deliberate mis-translation. A principal has been abandoned, future versions may suffer the consequnces. On the whole I prefer the NASB and the KJV, but ultimately both are translations and need to be read under the guidance of the Holy Spirit and a fair bit of humility!

nicholas bye

 2006/5/1 16:48Profile

Joined: 2005/1/6
Posts: 1913
Hemel Hempstead

 Re: Sorry for the pun

This does sound like a chocolate bar . This is very interesting as I am interested in greek versions aswell

Dominic Shiells

 2006/5/1 19:11Profile

Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Affiliate Disclosure | Privacy Policy