Yes, it’s another article on Bible translations! I believe the issue of false Bibles is important enough to continue plugging at the problem. The Word established our Faith and salvation; and it’s the Word that causes the believer to grow “in the unity of the faith” (Eph 4:13).
It’s my opinion that the negative implications concerning the use of spurious manuscripts will continue to have a growth-degenerating impact on the body of Christ—the Church! I believe the problems they produce will reach unto the final advent of the Lord Jesus, at which time He will bring everyone up on all truth. Meanwhile, there will be little spiritual growth for the majority of believers, which will establish a low-ebb atmosphere of encouragement for many saints.
Instead of being spiritually “exhorted,” they will find themselves wondering about for encouragement. It’s only through the Word of God that lasting encouragement will endure; for it’s the Word that established our faith and salvation, and it’s the Word which produces spiritual growth for the often- needed encouragement!
The detracted versions are much like animal poison. Like ten percent arsenic and ninety percent corn meal, they contain little enough error so as to go unnoticed among the majority of truth; and any error mixed with truth detracts from the impetus of the Word. It must be “every Word of God” (Luk 4:4), not the Word of God minus such and such. Oh yes, “a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump” (1Co 5:6; Gal 5:9). Not that any truth included can be rendered ineffective within itself, but the admixture diminishes its intended impact, resulting in less spiritual growth in Christ (Heb 10:25)!
One is not as encouraged when reading the Word if a doctrine of truth is not upheld; and that, at every possible opportunity. When Scripture wants to lift one up by a certain teaching or doctrine, it results in encouragement. For example, to know the omnipresence of Christ is an interesting and uplifting doctrine, which should be stated at every possible point. John 3:13 is one example of Christ’s deity concerning omnipresence. It states, “No man hath ascended up to heaven, but He that came down from heaven, even the Son of Man which is in heaven.” Here the Lord Jesus is declaring His Deity by informing us that He is in heaven while He is on the earth! The modern translations cease at “Son of Man,” and omit “who is in heaven,” which detracts from the encouragement of manifesting that Christ is omnipresent.
Another problem is where Scripture also declares the omnipresence of the Holy Spirit. 1John 5:7 writes, “For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one.” The modern translations write, “For there are three that testify,” and they do not include the heavenly testimony, which is supposed to be “the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one.” The intention of verses 7 and 8 are to declare that there are two witnesses, one in heaven and one on the earth; but omitting the Trinity not only detracts from the Word (Rev 22:18), but also misses the encouragement of knowing the omnipresence of the Spirit being on earth while in heaven!
If one were to take these problems, and multiply them multifold, as there are numerous passages the modern translation omitted or altered, you arrive at a translation that is briefed! This significantly downgrades the encouragement, and the reader is shorted of much exhortation that is present in the Traditional Texts.
The manuscripts used for the modern translations are only few in comparison to most extant manuscript copies. These highly questionable manuscript copies are primarily the Vaticanus, Sinaiticaus and Alaxandrinus Codices. Those used for the Traditional translations involve “a great cloud of witnesses,” “containing 4,489 manuscripts: 170 papyrus fragments from the 2nd century to the 7th; 212 are uncial (capital letter) manuscripts from the 4th century to the 10th; 2,429 are miniscule (small letter) manuscripts from the 9th to the 16th century; and 1,678 are lectionaries (lesson books for public reading containing extracts from the New Testament.” –“Which Bible,” David Otis Fuller, D.D., page 89
It was many centuries prior to the Protestant Reformation that the Byzantine Text was used for the entire Greek Church; and for more than 300 years following the Reformation it is the text which most Protestants still use. The Critical or Alexandrian Text (not used with the Majority Text) was abandoned and fell into disuse in 450 A.D. Thus this text source (Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus) was rejected by early scribes for 1500 years, until the middle of the 1800’s when they were discovered. So the early Church rejected the manuscripts which the modern critics took up; and this time plunging many into confusion—as the early corrupters had planned but could not accomplish. All modern translations (except NKJV and a couple like it) use the same corrupt source of ancient manuscript copies, thus all have the same omissions and alterations.
NC
“Exhort One Another” (Heb 10:25)
It’s my opinion that the negative implications concerning the use of spurious manuscripts will continue to have a growth-degenerating impact on the body of Christ—the Church! I believe the problems they produce will reach unto the final advent of the Lord Jesus, at which time He will bring everyone up on all truth. Meanwhile, there will be little spiritual growth for the majority of believers, which will establish a low-ebb atmosphere of encouragement for many saints.
Instead of being spiritually “exhorted,” they will find themselves wondering about for encouragement. It’s only through the Word of God that lasting encouragement will endure; for it’s the Word that established our faith and salvation, and it’s the Word which produces spiritual growth for the often- needed encouragement!
The detracted versions are much like animal poison. Like ten percent arsenic and ninety percent corn meal, they contain little enough error so as to go unnoticed among the majority of truth; and any error mixed with truth detracts from the impetus of the Word. It must be “every Word of God” (Luk 4:4), not the Word of God minus such and such. Oh yes, “a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump” (1Co 5:6; Gal 5:9). Not that any truth included can be rendered ineffective within itself, but the admixture diminishes its intended impact, resulting in less spiritual growth in Christ (Heb 10:25)!
One is not as encouraged when reading the Word if a doctrine of truth is not upheld; and that, at every possible opportunity. When Scripture wants to lift one up by a certain teaching or doctrine, it results in encouragement. For example, to know the omnipresence of Christ is an interesting and uplifting doctrine, which should be stated at every possible point. John 3:13 is one example of Christ’s deity concerning omnipresence. It states, “No man hath ascended up to heaven, but He that came down from heaven, even the Son of Man which is in heaven.” Here the Lord Jesus is declaring His Deity by informing us that He is in heaven while He is on the earth! The modern translations cease at “Son of Man,” and omit “who is in heaven,” which detracts from the encouragement of manifesting that Christ is omnipresent.
Another problem is where Scripture also declares the omnipresence of the Holy Spirit. 1John 5:7 writes, “For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one.” The modern translations write, “For there are three that testify,” and they do not include the heavenly testimony, which is supposed to be “the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one.” The intention of verses 7 and 8 are to declare that there are two witnesses, one in heaven and one on the earth; but omitting the Trinity not only detracts from the Word (Rev 22:18), but also misses the encouragement of knowing the omnipresence of the Spirit being on earth while in heaven!
If one were to take these problems, and multiply them multifold, as there are numerous passages the modern translation omitted or altered, you arrive at a translation that is briefed! This significantly downgrades the encouragement, and the reader is shorted of much exhortation that is present in the Traditional Texts.
The manuscripts used for the modern translations are only few in comparison to most extant manuscript copies. These highly questionable manuscript copies are primarily the Vaticanus, Sinaiticaus and Alaxandrinus Codices. Those used for the Traditional translations involve “a great cloud of witnesses,” “containing 4,489 manuscripts: 170 papyrus fragments from the 2nd century to the 7th; 212 are uncial (capital letter) manuscripts from the 4th century to the 10th; 2,429 are miniscule (small letter) manuscripts from the 9th to the 16th century; and 1,678 are lectionaries (lesson books for public reading containing extracts from the New Testament.” –“Which Bible,” David Otis Fuller, D.D., page 89
It was many centuries prior to the Protestant Reformation that the Byzantine Text was used for the entire Greek Church; and for more than 300 years following the Reformation it is the text which most Protestants still use. The Critical or Alexandrian Text (not used with the Majority Text) was abandoned and fell into disuse in 450 A.D. Thus this text source (Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus) was rejected by early scribes for 1500 years, until the middle of the 1800’s when they were discovered. So the early Church rejected the manuscripts which the modern critics took up; and this time plunging many into confusion—as the early corrupters had planned but could not accomplish. All modern translations (except NKJV and a couple like it) use the same corrupt source of ancient manuscript copies, thus all have the same omissions and alterations.
NC
B 