|
Author
|
Topic: Errors in modern versions by accident?
|
MentorsRiddle
Advanced Member
Member # 2108
|
posted
Please let me clarify.
You come here speaking of the bible being of bab. and in other posts how the spirit of the anti-christ is in modern churches.
Can you please explain further.
You see, we have a lot of people comming in here claiming things like this, from time to time.
If you could explain a little further it might motivate me, and others to read your 50+ page PDF for our edification.
God Bless and thanks for posting.
--------------------
With you I rise,
In you I sleep,
kneeling down I kiss your feet,
Grace abounds upon me now,
I once was lost
but now I'm found.
The gift of God dwells within,
To this love I now give in.
Posts: 1337 | From: Arkansas | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged | 
|
|
MentorsRiddle
Advanced Member
Member # 2108
|
posted
I'm sorry, but that PDF is a little confusing to read.
Can you explain in further detail what you mean?
--------------------
With you I rise,
In you I sleep,
kneeling down I kiss your feet,
Grace abounds upon me now,
I once was lost
but now I'm found.
The gift of God dwells within,
To this love I now give in.
Posts: 1337 | From: Arkansas | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Copper25
Advanced Member
Member # 7464
|
posted
(NIV) Matthew 9:13) But go and learn what this means: 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners."
(NASB) Matthew 9:13) "But go and learn what this means: 'I DESIRE COMPASSION, AND NOT SACRIFICE,' for I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners."
(ISV) Matthew 9:13) Go and learn what this means: 'I want mercy and not sacrifice,' because I did not come to call righteous people, but sinners."
(ASV) Matthew 9:13) But go ye and learn what this meaneth, I desire mercy, and not sacrifice, for I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.
(KJV) Matthew 9:13) But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.
In this example, all across the board here in the modern translations, hmmmm, no "to repentance"
This an example of why some important words being chopped of can be hurtful.
If I were to preach to a group of people and end with (modern translation), "Jesus called not the righteous but the sinners", I think a big point would be missing don't you. If Jesus were to just say what I just typed saying, "I have not called the righteous, but the sinners", simply put, that would leave the wrong impression and leave people with questions. But when "to repentance" is added, then the meaning is clear. Jesus spoke things with clarity, not confussion.
--------------------
Isaiah 40:6) The voice said, Cry. And he said, What shall I cry? All flesh is grass, and all the goodliness thereof is as the flower of the field
Posts: 262 | From: Rochester, NY | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
|
|
MentorsRiddle
Advanced Member
Member # 2108
|
posted
I'm sorry I brought it up.
I'll no longer speak of it here.
--------------------
With you I rise,
In you I sleep,
kneeling down I kiss your feet,
Grace abounds upon me now,
I once was lost
but now I'm found.
The gift of God dwells within,
To this love I now give in.
Posts: 1337 | From: Arkansas | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
|
|
practicalbibleteaching
Advanced Member
Member # 7755
|
posted
The above post is a study from Elder: David B Loughran, Stewarton Bible School, Stewarton, Scotland
--------------------
The Church of Jesus Christ is perfect for those who are not!
Posts: 53 | From: Tennessee | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
|
|
practicalbibleteaching
Advanced Member
Member # 7755
|
posted
THE MINORITY TEXTS, Vaticanus (B) & Sinaiticus (Aleph)
There are other extant Greek texts which are referred to as the 'Minority Texts' simply because they represent only about 5% of existing manuscripts. Another 5% are Neutral Texts: sometimes agreeing with the majority and at others with the minority. The 'Minority Texts' are also known as the Alexandrian Texts because they were produced in Alexandria in Egypt. The Minority Texts were rejected by the early Christians and also by all the Protestant Reformers of the 16th and 17th centuries. The Reformers, who were well aware of the existence of the Minority Texts, considered them unfit for translation purposes. These are very important points to bear in mind. Why did the early Christians and the Protestant Reformers reject the Minority Texts?
The answer is:
* The Minority Texts were the work of unbelieving Egyptian scribes who did not accept the Bible as the Word of God or JESUS as the SON of GOD!
* The Minority Texts abound with alterations, often a single manuscript being amended by several different scribes over a period of many years; something the Aaronic priests and Masorites would never have tolerated when making copies of the Scriptures.
* The Minority Texts omit approximately 200 verses from the Scriptures. This is equivalent to 1st and 2nd Peter. Pause and consider that stunning fact!
* The Minority Texts contradict themselves in hundreds of places.
* The Minority Texts are doctrinally weak and often dangerously incorrect.
Proof of these astonishing allegations will follow in Part Two where we will take a close look at some 80+ Bible verses corrupted by the Minority Text.
Yet, startling as it may sound, virtually every modern English Bible relies on the Minority Text as its underlying New Testament text in preference to Textus Receptus! Isn't that an amazing revelation? What brought about this almost incredible switch from the reliable Textus Receptus, beloved by the early Christian church and the Protestant Reformers, to the corrupt minority text favoured by the Roman Catholic Church? It is important that you find out soon: because the modern "Bible" you may be faithfully studying every day is really nothing more than a counterfeit posing as the Word of God! If it is any consolation to you, do remember that I was equally in the dark and totally devastated by my findings.
Misleading Footnotes
Modern translations abound with misleading footnotes, which do little else but cast doubt on the King James Version. Examples are:
* The Hebrew of this line is obscure.
* The meaning of the Hebrew is uncertain - or unknown.
* Other ancient mss add …
* Other ancient mss omit…
* Other ancient mss read …
* Other ancient mss insert…
* Some early mss read…
* The most ancient authorities omit John 7:53 - 8:11
* The best manuscripts omit this verse. (e.g. Matt.17:21, 18:11, 23:14, Mark 7:16, John 5:4)
* Some of the most ancient authorities bring the book (Mark) to a close at the end of Mark 16:8
* Many mss do not contain the remainder of this verse. (e.g. Acts 8:37)
* Many ancient authorities read…
* Not found in most of the old mss.(e.g. John 7:53-8:11)
In this article we will not analyse these footnotes, simply because there are scores of them scattered throughout the modern translations and each has a slightly different slant. However, one thing they all have in common: and that is, they ALL cast doubt on the accuracy of the Authorised King James Bible! By implication they all claim to be more accurate and reliable than the King James Version. In the preface of the Revised Standard Version (RSV) we read this misleading statement. "Yet the King James Version has grave defects." Oh how subtle is Satan, how evil and how sinister! The stunning fact is: the very opposite is true. The King James Version is infinitely more accurate and reliable than ANY modern English translation on the market today. And that is why for nearly 400 years it has had - and continues to have - the blessing of the Almighty God upon it: something no modern version or translation can come anywhere near. Most, after a decade or two, disappear from the book shops, only to re-appear some years later with a few alterations under a new name.
How did it happen that the Minority Text supplanted the trustworthy and respected Textus Receptus which triggered the great Protestant Reformation during which tens of thousands of true believers perished by flame, famine and torture? Who is behind this dangerous deception that has engulfed the Christian Church? Do you know? Do you care? Is it important? Does it really matter?
I most certainly didn't know. But I do believe that it is vitally important that every believer know that Satan is behind it: not any particular Church, its leaders or its members - but the great enemy of souls! He is behind every deception ever aimed at the human race and millions, in and out of the church, believe his lies. I for one had been living in blissful ignorance of the danger for many years; till a massive heart attack laid me flat on my back and I was moved - yea inwardly compelled - to make a deep study of the History of God's Word and how He has providentially preserved it till today.
Now let us turn our attention to the Minority Text's two most prominent manuscripts on which most modern translations of the Bible heavily rely. They are called Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph ) and Codex Vaticanus (B). The word 'codex,' incidentally, means that the manuscript is in book form, with pages, as opposed to being a scroll. But first a little about the man whom God raised up over 150 years ago to expose the errors of the Minority Texts. His name is John Burgon.
Dean John William Burgon
John Burgon was undoubtedly one of the greatest defenders of the Greek text of the New Testament. He exposed the hundreds of amendments, deletions and additions in the Minority Text and defended the reliability of Textus Receptus till the day of his death. Unlike most Bible students and ministers of today, John Burgon was a masterful Greek scholar of the highest rank who spent much of his life browsing through the museums and libraries of Europe examining the ancient Greek manuscripts. He had first hand experience examining the Vatican texts whilst he ministered as a chaplain to a congregation in Rome. His findings are of utmost value in these days of wilful, spiritual ignorance and sin. I will quote a few extracts about this magnificent warrior from David O Fuller's book Which Bible?
Quote:
"John William Burgon was born August 21, 1813. He matriculated at Oxford in 1841, taking several high honours there, and his B.A. 1845. He took his M.A. there in 1848…the thing about Burgon, however, which lifts him out of the nineteenth century English setting and endears him to the hearts of earnest Christians of other lands and other ages is his steadfast defence of the scriptures as the infallible Word of God. He strove with all his power to arrest the modernistic currents which during his lifetime had begun to flow within the Church of England, continuing his efforts with unabated zeal up to the very day of his death. With this purpose in mind he laboured mightily in the field of New Testament textual criticism.
In 1860, while temporary chaplain of the English congregation at Rome, he made a personal examination of Codex B (Vaticanus), and in 1862 he inspected the treasures of St. Catherine's Convent on Mt. Sinai. Later he made several tours of European libraries, examining and collating New Testament manuscripts wherever he went…Of all the critics of the nineteenth century Burgon alone was consistently Christian in his vindication of the Divine inspiration and providential preservation of the text of Holy Scripture…
Burgon regarded the good state of preservation of B (Codex Vaticanus) and Aleph (Codex Sinaiticus) in spite of their exceptional age as proof not of their goodness but of their badness. If they had been good manuscripts, they would have been read to pieces long ago. We suspect that these two manuscripts are indebted for their preservation, solely to their ascertained evil character; which has occasioned that the one eventually found its way, four centuries ago, to a forgotten shelf in the Vatican Library; while the other, after exercising the ingenuity of several generations of critical Correctors, eventually (viz. In A.D.1844) got deposited in the wastepaper basket of the Convent at the foot of Mount Sinai.
Had B (Vaticanus) and Aleph (Sinaiticus) been copies of average purity, they must long since have shared the inevitable fate of books which are freely used and highly prized; namely, they would have fallen into decadence and disappeared from sight. Thus the fact that B and Aleph are so old is a point against them, not something in their favour.
It shows that the Church rejected them and did not read them. Otherwise they would have worn out and disappeared through much reading.
For an orthodox Christian Burgon's view is the only reasonable one. If we believe that God gave the Church guidance in regard to the New Testament books, then surely it is logical to believe that God gave the church similar guidance in regard to the text which these books contained…
Who but those with Roman Catholic sympathies could ever be pleased with the notion that God preserved the true New Testament text in secret for almost one thousand years and then finally handed it over to the Roman pontiff for safekeeping? Surely every orthodox Protestant will prefer to think with Burgon that God preserved the true text of the Greek New Testament in the usage of the Greek-speaking Church down through the centuries and then delivered it up intact to the Protestant reformers." (Ref:F11)
Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph)
This codex was produced in the 4th century. In his book Let's Weigh the Evidence, Barry Burton writes of Codex Sinaiticus:
Quote:
"The Sinaiticus is a manuscript that was found in 1844 in a trash pile in St.Catherine's Monastery near Mt. Sinai, by a man named Mr Tischendorf. It contains nearly all of the New Testament plus it adds the 'Shepherd of Hermes' and the 'Epistle of Barnabas' to the New Testament. The Sinaiticus is extremely unreliable, proven by examining the manuscript itself. John Burgon spent years examining every available manuscript of the New Testament. He writes about Sinaiticus...
'On many occasions 10, 20, 30, 40 words are dropped through very carelessness. Letters, words or even whole sentences are frequently written twice over, or begun and immediately cancelled; while that gross blunder, whereby a clause is omitted because it happens to end in the same words as the clause preceding, occurs no less than 115 times in the New Testament.
THAT'S NOT ALL!
On nearly every page of the manuscript there are corrections and revisions, done by 10 different people. Some of these corrections were made about the same time that it was copied, but most of them were made in the 6th and 7th century.
… Phillip Mauro, a brilliant lawyer who was admitted to the bar of the US Supreme Court in April 1892, wrote a book called "Which Version" in the early 1900s. He writes concerning the Sinaiticus… 'From these facts, therefore, we declare: first that the impurity of the Codex Sinaiticus, in every part of it, was fully recognized by those who were best acquainted with it, and that from the very beginning until the time when it was finally cast aside as worthless for any practical purpose.' " (Ref:C1)
In his excellent book An Understandable History Of The Bible, Rev. Samuel Gipp writes of Codex Sinaiticus:
Quote:
"One of the MSS is called Sinaiticus and is represented by the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet, Aleph. This MS from all outward appearances looks very beautiful. It is written in book form (codex) on vellum. It contains 147 1/2 leaves. The pages are 15" by 13 1/2" with four columns of 48 lines per page. It contains many spurious books such as the 'Shepherd of Hermes,' the 'Epistle of Barnabas' and even the Didache.
The great Greek scholar, Dr Scrivener, points this out in his historic work A Full Collation of the Codex Sinaiticus. He speaks of correctional alterations made to the MS: 'The Codex is covered with such alterations... brought in by at least ten different revisers, some of them systematically spread over every page, others occasional or limited to separated portions of the MS, many of these being contemporaneous with the first writer, but the greater part belonging to the sixth or seventh century.' " (Ref:B5)
Codex Vaticanus (B)
The second major manuscript of the Minority Text is known as Codex Vaticanus, often referred to as 'B'. This codex was also produced in the 4th century. It was found over a thousand years later in 1481 in the Vatican library in Rome, where it is currently held. It is written on expensive vellum, a fine parchment originally from the skin of calf or antelope. Some authorities claim that it was one of a batch of 50 Bibles ordered from Egypt by the Roman Emperor Constantine; hence its beautiful appearance and the expensive skins which were used for its pages. But alas! this manuscript, like its corrupt Egyptian partner Sinaiticus (Aleph) is also riddled with omissions, insertions and amendments.
Of Codex Vaticanus Samuel Gipp writes on page 72:
Quote:
"This codex omits many portions of Scripture vital to Christian doctrine. Vaticanus omits Genesis 1.1 through Genesis 46:28; Psalms 106 through 138; Matthew 16:2,3; Romans 16:24; the Pauline Pastoral Epistles; Revelation; and everything in Hebrews after 9:14.
It seems suspicious indeed that a MS possessed by the Roman Catholic church omits the portion of the book of Hebrews which exposes the 'mass' as totally useless (Please read Hebrews 10:10-12). The 'mass' in conjunction with the false doctrine of purgatory go hand-in-hand to form a perpetual money making machine for Rome. Without one or the other, the Roman Catholic Church would go broke!
It also omits portions of the Scripture telling of the creation (Genesis), the prophetic details of the crucifixion (Psalm 22), and, of course, the portion which prophesies of the destruction of Babylon (Rome), the great ***** of Revelation chapter 17.
Vaticanus , though intact physically, is found to be in poor literary quality. Dr Martin declares, 'B' exhibits numerous places where the scribe has written the same word or phrase twice in succession. Dr J Smythe states, 'From one end to the other, the whole manuscript has been travelled over by the pen of some… scribe of about the tenth century.' If Vaticanus was considered a trustworthy text originally, the mass of corrections and scribal changes obviously render its testimony highly suspicious and questionable."
Rev. Gipp continues on page 73:
Quote:
"The corrupt and unreliable nature of these two MSS (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus) is best summed up by one who has thoroughly examined them, John W Burgon: 'The impurity of the text exhibited by these codices is not a question of opinion but fact...In the Gospels alone, Codex B(Vatican) leaves out words or whole clauses no less than 1,491 times. It bears traces of careless transcriptions on every page…
If we are to be thorough and discriminatory in our evaluation of the true New Testament text, then we must not -- we cannot -- overlook these facts.' How did these MSS come into being? How did it happen that they should be beautiful to the eye, yet within contain such vile and devastating corruption? It seems that these uncial MSS along with the papyrus MSS included in this category all resulted from a revision of the true, or Universal Text. This revision was enacted in Egypt by Egyptian scribes! " (Ref:B6)
Rev. Gipp continues:
Quote:
"So we see that once a pure copy of the Universal Text (Textus Receptus) had been carried down into Egypt, it was recopied. During the process of this recopying, it was revised by men who did not revere it as truly the Word of God. This text was examined by the critical eye of Greek philosophy and Egyptian morals. These men saw nothing wrong with putting the Book in subjection to their opinion instead of their opinion being in subjection to the book. This process produced a text which was local to the educational centre of Alexandria, Egypt. This text went no further than southern Italy where the Roman Catholic Church found its unstable character perfect for overthrowing the true Word of God which was being used universally by the true Christians." (Ref:B7)
The Westminster Dictionary of the Bible has this to say about Codex Vaticanus (B) on page 624 under article Versions.
Quote:
" It should be noted, however, that there is no prominent Biblical MS. in which there occur such gross cases of misspelling, faulty grammar, and omission, as in B." (Ref:H2)
Barry Burton comments further:
Quote:
"For one thing…Vaticanus and Sinaiticus disagree with each other over 3000 times in the gospels alone… Facts about the Vaticanus.
"It was written on fine vellum (tanned animal skins) and remains in excellent condition. It was found in the Vatican Library in 1481 AD. In spite of being in excellent condition, it omits Genesis 1:1-Gen.46:28, Psalm 106-138, Matt.16:2-3, the Pauline pastoral Epistles, Hebrews 9:14-13:25, and all of Revelation. These parts were probably left out on purpose."
"Besides all that - in the gospels alone it leaves out 237 words, 452 clauses and 748 whole sentences, which hundreds of later copies agree together as having the same words in the same places, the same clauses in the same places and the same sentences in the same places... The Vaticanus was available to the translators of the King James Bible, but they did not use it because they knew it is unreliable." (Ref:C2)
Dean Burgon comments on Codices Sinaiticus (Aleph)and Vaticanus (B).
Quote:
"Compromise of any sort between the two conflicting parties, is impossible; for they simply contradict one another. Codd.B and Aleph are either amongst the purist of manuscripts,- or else they are among the very foulest. The Text of Drs.Westcott and Hort is either the very best which has ever appeared,- or else it is the very worst; the nearest to the sacred Autographs,- or furthest from them."… "There is no room for both opinions; and there cannot exist any middle view." (Ref: P3)
Oldest and Best
Bible students are often told that Codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are older and better than other manuscripts: the implication being that they must, therefore, be more accurate. But this conclusion is wrong. We have already seen how Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are corrupt beyond measure. To be sure they are 'better' in appearance, but certainly not in their content. Remember they are written on expensive vellum; so they ought to be in good shape. They are older, but older than what? They are older than other Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. But they are not older than the earliest versions of the Bible: the Peshitta, Italic, Waldensian and the Old Latin Vulgate: versions which agree with the Majority text. These ancient versions are some 200 years older than Aleph and B. Yes Aleph and B are older than other Greek mss, but for anyone to suggest that they are more accurate is absurd. It is like someone saying 'You will find the greatest TRUTH being preached in the oldest and most beautiful cathedrals of the world,' or, 'the most beautiful women have the best characters.'
In his masterful book Revision Revised Dean Burgon wrote, over a hundred years ago, concerning the ages of Codices Vatican (B) and Sinai (Aleph):
Quote:
"Lastly, - We suspect that these two Manuscripts are indebted for their preservation, solely to their ascertained evil character, which has occasioned that the one eventually found its way, four centuries ago, to a forgotten shelf in the Vatican library; while the other, after exercising the ingenuity of several generations of critical Correctors, eventually (viz. In A.D. 1844) got deposited in the waste-paper basket of the Convent at the foot of mount Sinai. Had B and Aleph been copies of average purity, they must long since have shared the inevitable fate of books which are freely used and highly prized; namely, they would have fallen into decadence and disappeared from sight." (Ref: P1)
In short these two codices are old simply because:
* First: They were written on extremely expensive and durable antelope skins.
* Second: They were so full of errors, alterations, additions and deletions, that they were never used by true believers and seldom even by their own custodians. Thus they had little chance of wearing away.
Can any true believer imagine JEHOVAH, the Holy One of Israel, hiding Codex Vaticanus away for over 1000 years in the Vatican Library till 1481? or prompting the deeply religious monks of St Catherine's Monastery to dump Sinaiticus into a waste basket? The very idea is ridiculous.
A vital fact to remember is that though codices Aleph and B (produced in the 4th century) are older than other Greek manuscript copies of the Scriptures, they are not older than the Peshitta, Italic, the Old Latin Vulgate and the Waldensian versions which were produced 200 years earlier in the 2nd century. All these versions, copies of which are still in existence, agree with Textus Receptus, the underlying text of the King James Bible. I repeat: these ancient versions are some 200 years older than Vaticanus and Sinaiticus: so the 'oldest is best' argument should not be used. All Bibles fall, basically, into one of two categories.
* Those based on the Majority Text. (Textus Receptus)
* Those based on the Minority Text. (Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus etc.)
Which Bible you select for study each day is going to have an enormous effect on your spiritual growth and well being. Bear this vital fact in mind.
--------------------
The Church of Jesus Christ is perfect for those who are not!
Posts: 53 | From: Tennessee | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
|
|
|
|
KnowHim
Admin
Member # 1
|
posted
So you are saying that you don't think God can keep His word the way He wants it because of men?
.
Posts: 3276 | From: Charlestown, IN | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
|
|
MentorsRiddle
Advanced Member
Member # 2108
|
posted
quote:
If we follow that reasoning we’d have to say that the chronicles of the kings of Media and Persia should be in the Old Testament…I think you can see that’s clearly not the case. So…trust the Word of God as it’s been given to us and don’t fret. Just because something is mentioned doesn’t mean it’s inspired.
.
I believe if God wanted this to be in the bible it would be there, but it is not. God don't make mistakes and He will and does do what He wants to.
I must admit, after I posted what I did earlier, I felt sorry I did so, because I did not do my homework on that particular book...
Alas, I am sometimes rash in my decision making and rush into actions head strong without thinking all the way through.
Hoever... I have done my homework on the Book of Enoch -- not to be mistaken with II Enoch, which is a beleived fraud -- and the Book of Enoch was widly used in the origional church, but has been left out now.
Why?
I agree, God NEVER NEVER NEVER makes mistakes -- but MEN do -- Which is why, in the origional BIble there were certain books that are now left our of our Bible.
Either way -- if there are books missing or not -- I'll still love Jesus/God/Holy Spirit with all my heart and continue searching for truth and seeking spiritual knowledge, which I beleive we are ment to do.
--------------------
With you I rise,
In you I sleep,
kneeling down I kiss your feet,
Grace abounds upon me now,
I once was lost
but now I'm found.
The gift of God dwells within,
To this love I now give in.
Posts: 1337 | From: Arkansas | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
|
|
KnowHim
Admin
Member # 1
|
posted
I found the below post in a blog interesting:
Here is what 2 Samuel 1:18 says:
“(Also he bade them teach the children of Judah the use of the bow: behold, it is written in the book of Jasher.)”
So here’s the first question:
#1- Did you wonder what the book was enough to do some research & homework?
#2- Are we missing a book of the Bible?
Here is what I found. First, what does the word “Jasher” mean in the original Hebrew?
yashar = 1) straight, upright, correct, right 1a) straight, level 1b) right, pleasing, correct 1c) straightforward, just, upright, fitting, proper 1d) uprightness, righteous, upright 1e) that which is upright (subst)
The Greek translation of the Old Testament (the Septuagint) uses a Greek word that is also translated as “upright.” It could be translated the “book of the upright/just.” So here’s the real question…what book does it refer to? Here is what Matthew Henry commented:
“That book was probably a collection of state-poems; what is said to be written in that book is also poetical, a fragment of an historical poem. Even songs would be forgotten and lost if they were not committed to writing, that best conservatory of knowledge…It is not a divine hymn, nor given by inspiration of God to be used in divine service, nor is there any mention of God in it; but it is a human composition, and therefore was inserted, not in the book of Psalms (which, being of divine original, is preserved), but in the book of Jasher, which, being only a collection of common poems, is long since lost.”
According to some sources there appears to be at least three separate medieval “book of Jashers.” The bottom line is that we have no manuscript evidence for a trustworthy “book of Jasher” that dates back to biblical times.
Should this bother you? Not at all! Just because a book is mentioned in the Bible doesn’t mean it was inspired and then lost. Want an example? OK…twist my arm! How about this verse:
“And all the acts of his power and of his might, and the declaration of the greatness of Mordecai, whereunto the king advanced him, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Media and Persia?” (Est 10:2 KJV)
If we follow that reasoning we’d have to say that the chronicles of the kings of Media and Persia should be in the Old Testament…I think you can see that’s clearly not the case. So…trust the Word of God as it’s been given to us and don’t fret. Just because something is mentioned doesn’t mean it’s inspired.
.
I believe if God wanted this to be in the bible it would be there, but it is not. God don't make mistakes and He will and does do what He wants to.
.
--------------------
Video Tracts
Christian Media
LiveTracts
Friend Me On Facebook
Evangelism TackleBox
Posts: 3276 | From: Charlestown, IN | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
|
|
MentorsRiddle
Advanced Member
Member # 2108
|
posted
Here is just one book:
The Book of Jasher
Referenced 2 times in the Holy Bible, but left out...WHY??
"Is it not written in the book of Jasher?" Joshua 10:13
"Behold, it is written in the book of Jasher." 2 Samuel 1:18
IF you wish to read it:
here it is http://www.dubroom.org/download/pdf/ebooks/the_book_of_jasher.pdf
--------------------
With you I rise,
In you I sleep,
kneeling down I kiss your feet,
Grace abounds upon me now,
I once was lost
but now I'm found.
The gift of God dwells within,
To this love I now give in.
Posts: 1337 | From: Arkansas | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
|
|
MentorsRiddle
Advanced Member
Member # 2108
|
posted
I am weary to speak here of why they were almost left out, because I have been down that road before here in the past and received alot of back lash because of it.
But, if you have a desire to know, just begin your research on what the early Christians beleived that is different from what Christians today beleive.
Once you begin drawing closer to the Source of Christianity and it's teachings, you begin to learn so much more than you would beleive.
When you learn of the truth it will at first disturbe you... then it will spark the truth within you.
--------------------
With you I rise,
In you I sleep,
kneeling down I kiss your feet,
Grace abounds upon me now,
I once was lost
but now I'm found.
The gift of God dwells within,
To this love I now give in.
Posts: 1337 | From: Arkansas | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
|
|
MentorsRiddle
Advanced Member
Member # 2108
|
posted
quote:
MentorsRiddle,
What "Book of John" are you speaking of?
I am aware of a Secret Book of John, that speaks of more than one god;
one being a "mother of all, who was before all",
easy to see why that is not included in the cannon of scripture.
As to "Thomas",
there is the Gosple of Thomas and the Infant Gosple of Thomas;
the Infant Gosple of Thomas tells of the child Jesus doing miracles and creating things before the Holy Spirit comes on him at John's baptism, well before the wedding feast at Cana, which John says is the first of His miracles;
again easy to see why it's not there.
Of much more interest would be something like the Book of Enoch, whch the RCC left out, but which is still included in the cannon of scripture in other parts of the world, Ethopia for example.
have a great day in Jesus
T7
I am speaking of the books that are currently in the Holy Bible.
--------------------
With you I rise,
In you I sleep,
kneeling down I kiss your feet,
Grace abounds upon me now,
I once was lost
but now I'm found.
The gift of God dwells within,
To this love I now give in.
Posts: 1337 | From: Arkansas | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Thunderz7
Advanced Member
Member # 31
|
posted
MentorsRiddle,
What "Book of John" are you speaking of?
I am aware of a Secret Book of John, that speaks of more than one god;
one being a "mother of all, who was before all",
easy to see why that is not included in the cannon of scripture.
As to "Thomas",
there is the Gosple of Thomas and the Infant Gosple of Thomas;
the Infant Gosple of Thomas tells of the child Jesus doing miracles and creating things before the Holy Spirit comes on him at John's baptism, well before the wedding feast at Cana, which John says is the first of His miracles;
again easy to see why it's not there.
Of much more interest would be something like the Book of Enoch, whch the RCC left out, but which is still included in the cannon of scripture in other parts of the world, Ethopia for example.
have a great day in Jesus
T7
Posts: 1113 | From: Northeast Alabama | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Eden
unregistered
|
posted
What is also very good about the KJV is that the English KJV does not add a lot of words inbetween the Greek words and in the few places where the KJV DOES add a few words, the KJV puts those words in italics, to show that there are really no Greek words in the original text for that italicized phrase.
Practically all the other English versions start adding more and more English words than there are original Greek words in most manuscripts.
And it turns out that Tudor English of the 17th century A.D. was admirably suited to the task of most closely translating the Greek words of most manuscripts.
And in addition, as The Turning Sword also said, an important reasson to use the KJV "most of the time" is that the KJV is keyed to the Strong's Concordance and to other study tools, diligently done by Christians who have gone before us. NONE of the other English Bibles have so many study tools attached to them.
And then there are of course also the French and the Spanish and the German and the [fill in the blank] version of the Greek manuscripts, which were NOT derived from ANY English version but were derived completely independently and directly from their own Greek manuscripts.
So in a Spanish bible, the book of James is called Santiago ... it is not an error, it is the Spanish rendition of the Greek word.
love, Eden
IP: Logged |
|
|
becauseHElives
Advanced Member
Member # 87
|
posted
MentorsRiddle I concur ![[thumbsup2]](graemlins/thumbsup2.gif)
--------------------
Strive to enter in at the strait gate:for many, I say unto you will seek to enter in, and shall not be able. ( Luke 13:24 )
Posts: 4578 | From: Southeast Texas | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
|
|
MentorsRiddle
Advanced Member
Member # 2108
|
posted
quote:
I believe the errors in modern versions of Scripture have been done on purpose.... there is a watering down of the message of Scripture to bring about the apostasy of he end time.....
I agree 100%...
But I also beleive that other books of the bible were left out on purpose -- and are being kept at the Vatican in Rome.
The Book of John and Thomas were almost left out of The Holy Bible, because they aluded to certain things that the ruling religious teachers did not want mentioned.
But, if you listen to your heart, The Holy Spirit will guide you on your path and minister unto you what is true and Holy.
--------------------
With you I rise,
In you I sleep,
kneeling down I kiss your feet,
Grace abounds upon me now,
I once was lost
but now I'm found.
The gift of God dwells within,
To this love I now give in.
Posts: 1337 | From: Arkansas | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
|
|
becauseHElives
Advanced Member
Member # 87
|
posted
I believe the errors in modern versions of Scripture have been done on purpose.... there is a watering down of the message of Scripture to bring about the apostasy of he end time.....
it is imperative the heart of men and women be as the Bearens in studying the Scriptures with pray letting the Holy Spirit guide in to all Truth...
having a heart purposed to know the Truth no matter what the cost will never be deceived...
the is where true humility is revealed verses a heart of religious pride.....
the person who truly sees themselves as the publican at the alter that knew he was not worthy be in Yahweh's presents will always the Truth, when their trust is in Yahshua....
And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.
--------------------
Strive to enter in at the strait gate:for many, I say unto you will seek to enter in, and shall not be able. ( Luke 13:24 )
Posts: 4578 | From: Southeast Texas | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Copper25
Advanced Member
Member # 7464
|
posted
I still never said I was a king James only person, nor do I agree with everything on that site, nor do I believe all 20 of those examples are worth my concern, but this one bother me
(KJV) Mark 1:2)As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.
(NASB) Mark 1:2) As it is written in Isaiah the prophet: "BEHOLD, I SEND MY MESSENGER AHEAD OF YOU, WHO WILL PREPARE YOUR WAY;
NIV Mark 1:2) It is written in Isaiah the prophet: "I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way"--
Now where did that verse actually ome from, not Isaiah, but Malachi 3:1, that is said to in many modern translations come from Isaiah. Just a big goof in the print I guess ![[happyhappy]](graemlins/happyhappy.gif) .
--------------------
Isaiah 40:6) The voice said, Cry. And he said, What shall I cry? All flesh is grass, and all the goodliness thereof is as the flower of the field
Posts: 262 | From: Rochester, NY | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Thunderz7
Advanced Member
Member # 31
|
posted
I agree with Carol on this.
Any version must be compared to the writings that exist in the oldest copies of the original languages and such.
Compating with the King James is under the assumption that the KJV "only" theory is correct, and that the KJV is "the only" true version.
The Bible I use most is KJV;
because of Strong's, Vine's, and Young's
the KJV is the Bible I use to study GOD's WORD.
But the KJV Only theory won't hold water, though way too many believe it.
be blessed in Jesus
T7
Posts: 1113 | From: Northeast Alabama | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
|
|
|
|
Copper25
Advanced Member
Member # 7464
|
posted
http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/defense1.txt
(near beginning Look at question 6, 7, (8) a lot cut off, 10, 13, 15, (19) very sad
are these just by "accident" or not? ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Sad thing is, these are in the NASB version too which is suppose to be the most accurate version.
http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/defens.htm
This is the main link above, look at chapter 19 also, very interesting
The modern claims ey?
--------------------
Isaiah 40:6) The voice said, Cry. And he said, What shall I cry? All flesh is grass, and all the goodliness thereof is as the flower of the field
Posts: 262 | From: Rochester, NY | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
