Bibles That Remove Or Confuse The Deity Of Christ

[Jerry]

The preserved Textus Receptus - the text behind our King James Bible - says Joseph, not "his father"; therefore, no matter how you look at it, the translators or the compilers of the Critical Greek Text changed the wording or the meaning of the words used in that passage. According to Strong's Concordance, the word used for "Joseph" here is:

Ἰωσήφ Iōsḗph, ee-o-safe'

of Hebrew origin (H3130); Joseph, the name of seven Israelites:—Joseph.

Imagine that! A version that changes it to read "his father" is in fact saying something different, even if you think what they have changed is acceptable, God says don't add to, take away from, or change His Word. You can't have God's preserved Word and change it at the same time. Things that are different are still not the same!

[BrotherTony]

4 hours ago, Jerry said:

The preserved Textus Receptus - the text behind our King James Bible - says Joseph, not "his father"; therefore, no matter how you look at it, the translators or the compilers of the Critical Greek Text changed the wording or the meaning of the words used in that passage. According to Strong's Concordance, the word used for "Joseph" here is:

Ἰωσήφ Iōsḗph, ee-o-safe'

 

of Hebrew origin (H3130); Joseph, the name of seven Israelites:—Joseph.

Imagine that! A version that changes it to read "his father" is in fact saying something different, even if you think what they have changed is acceptable, God says don't add to, take away from, or change His Word. You can't have God's preserved Word and change it at the same time. Things that are different are still not the same!

Are you positive the underlying manuscripts of the critical texts are the same as the RT on this, or is there an intentional misrepresentation by most KJVO's? Asking in all sincerity. I've looked it up before, but that was many years ago....still, I would go by the totality of the text instead of just one part of the passage. 

[swathdiver]

16 hours ago, BrotherTony said:

Are you positive the underlying manuscripts of the critical texts

The Sinaiticus is a fraud, it was written between 1839-1844 to get a printing press from Russia.  In order to give it credulity by the guy that stole it, a letter was made up referring to the Septuagint which also didn't exist.  The ink this was letter was written with didn't exist until the 1800s.  There is no chain of custody before the 1840s.  Have a look at it on their website and you will laugh at how amateurish it is.

https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx

[BrotherTony]

1 hour ago, swathdiver said:

The Sinaiticus is a fraud, it was written between 1839-1844 to get a printing press from Russia.  In order to give it credulity by the guy that stole it, a letter was made up referring to the Septuagint which also didn't exist.  The ink this was letter was written with didn't exist until the 1800s.  There is no chain of custody before the 1840s.  Have a look at it on their website and you will laugh at how amateurish it is.

https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx

Not so sure I believe this, because even the Bible colleges I've attended have taught differently, as have most of the pastors I've had when they're describing these texts. 

[swathdiver]

2 hours ago, BrotherTony said:

Not so sure I believe this, because even the Bible colleges I've attended have taught differently, as have most of the pastors I've had when they're describing these texts. 

That's quite understandable as the Sinaiticus was not available for viewing until 2010.  Before that, everyone took it as gospel that it was authentic and discounted the letters from the men involved in its creation and theft.

The folks in possession of it will not allow the pages or the ink to be dated.  It's plainly obvious that portions of the text were purposely aged with tea or something, others are still pristine, especially those in possession by Russia.

Sinaiticus would never pass a critical review of being a period work.  It's not written in the way they wrote back then, there are notes and additions in the margins as the scribes uncle made changes to the text to fit his heretical views.

[BrotherTony]

1 hour ago, swathdiver said:

That's quite understandable as the Sinaiticus was not available for viewing until 2010.  Before that, everyone took it as gospel that it was authentic and discounted the letters from the men involved in its creation and theft.

The folks in possession of it will not allow the pages or the ink to be dated.  It's plainly obvious that portions of the text were purposely aged with tea or something, others are still pristine, especially those in possession by Russia.

Sinaiticus would never pass a critical review of being a period work.  It's not written in the way they wrote back then, there are notes and additions in the margins as the scribes uncle made changes to the text to fit his heretical views.

This is somewhat like the teaching that's going on that sevreral friends and acquaintances are getting in IFB schools. Sorry, I'm still not buying the "fake color on the pages" bit at this point. Nor am I a defender of the text...I'm just saying, let's get honest about things. 

https://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2019/02/is-codex-sinaiticus-fake-new-evidence.html

Edited May 9, 2022 by BrotherTony

[swathdiver]

56 minutes ago, BrotherTony said:

This is somewhat like the teaching that's going on that sevreral friends and acquaintances are getting in IFB schools. Sorry, I'm still not buying the "fake color on the pages" bit at this point. Nor am I a defender of the text...I'm just saying, let's get honest about things. 

https://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2019/02/is-codex-sinaiticus-fake-new-evidence.html

The article that the link refers to leaves out a lot of information.  There were men who viewed the Sinaiticus shortly after its "discovery" and then viewed it later and noticed that portions had been purposely aged, the pages were no longer white as they had seen them earlier.  if you look at the actual pages you can see this for yourself.  Why is there only one copy?  Nearly 1800 years had passed since the scriptures were completed and in this time there is but one copy with no chain of custody.  Think about that.  Doesn't that run against what God said about His Word?  There's a hundred other reasons why it is a product of satan.

 

Remember, from discovery in the 1840s until 2010, only "scholars" and select people were able to view Sinaiticus and then only parts of it as it was broken up and may remain so to this day.  

 

Regarding the Septuagint, what is its chain of custody?  There's no mention of it in history but in a forged letter from the 1800s.  We were told that this line came out of Egypt but it was a line that most of us bought without question.  We were wrong.  If you search through these forums you'll see me parroting the same thing until about 7-8 years ago when I studied it.  

[BrotherTony]

6 hours ago, swathdiver said:

The article that the link refers to leaves out a lot of information.  There were men who viewed the Sinaiticus shortly after its "discovery" and then viewed it later and noticed that portions had been purposely aged, the pages were no longer white as they had seen them earlier.  if you look at the actual pages you can see this for yourself.  Why is there only one copy?  Nearly 1800 years had passed since the scriptures were completed and in this time there is but one copy with no chain of custody.  Think about that.  Doesn't that run against what God said about His Word?  There's a hundred other reasons why it is a product of satan.

 

Remember, from discovery in the 1840s until 2010, only "scholars" and select people were able to view Sinaiticus and then only parts of it as it was broken up and may remain so to this day.  

 

Regarding the Septuagint, what is its chain of custody?  There's no mention of it in history but in a forged letter from the 1800s.  We were told that this line came out of Egypt but it was a line that most of us bought without question.  We were wrong.  If you search through these forums you'll see me parroting the same thing until about 7-8 years ago when I studied it.  

You keep throwing around the word "fraud" without posting definitive proof of the same. One link won't cut it. The only places I see these claims is on many IFB sites with a huge lack of evidence. I'm not saying these texts are the best, but I won't misrepresent them either, and will continue to question those who are "hit and run" posters on it for the sake of honesty.

[swathdiver]

8 hours ago, BrotherTony said:

You keep throwing around the word "fraud" without posting definitive proof of the same. One link won't cut it. The only places I see these claims is on many IFB sites with a huge lack of evidence. I'm not saying these texts are the best, but I won't misrepresent them either, and will continue to question those who are "hit and run" posters on it for the sake of honesty.

That link is to the Sinaiticus itself, that's evidence.  If you arm yourself with the basics of how scribes back in the day made copies it'll be plainly obvious.  There are no jots and tittles in it either if memory serves.

 

If you really want to know the truth, go research it for yourself, I did.  If you have questions, ask.  These truths are not invalid because you demand more from me than what you've seen.  I gave you many nuggets of information.  Here are two more, Constantine Simonides and Constantine Tischendorf.  I'll reiterate a third, what is the chain of custody of the LXX, the Septuagint?

 

Your objection reminds me of the people attempting to tear down the work of Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson, a man almost single-handedly using peoples DNA to trace man back through the ages to each of Noah's sons and man's movement across this earth which refutes the many fantasies of evolutionary thought.

Often times, it's just one Christian, standing against the world, that puts forth the truth and makes changes for good.  Who was that guy that single-handedly stopped the lions from eating the people in the arenas?  

 

My eyes are hurting, just got up to let the dogs out and now going back to bed.  

[BrotherTony]

58 minutes ago, swathdiver said:

That link is to the Sinaiticus itself, that's evidence.  If you arm yourself with the basics of how scribes back in the day made copies it'll be plainly obvious.  There are no jots and tittles in it either if memory serves.

 

If you really want to know the truth, go research it for yourself, I did.  If you have questions, ask.  These truths are not invalid because you demand more from me than what you've seen.  I gave you many nuggets of information.  Here are two more, Constantine Simonides and Constantine Tischendorf.  I'll reiterate a third, what is the chain of custody of the LXX, the Septuagint?

 

Your objection reminds me of the people attempting to tear down the work o, f Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson, a man almost single-handedly using peoples DNA to trace man back through the ages to each of Noah's sons and man's movement across this earth which refutes the many fantasies of evolutionary thought.

Often times, it's just one Christian, standing against the world, that puts forth the truth and makes changes for good.  Who was that guy that single-handedly stopped the lions from eating the people in the arenas?  

 

My eyes are hurting, just got up to let the dogs out and now going back to bed.

I'm aware of the "evidence", as I studied it in three different Bible colleges, in a Christian high school back in the 1970s, and in many churches and conferences. As far as "objections",, there really aren't "objections" on my part...I'm just tired of "one-hit wonders" who post one link to try and prove their point. Your compariesons are ludicrous at best, and haughty as well. There's ALWAYS some sort of "new evidence" which isn't really all that "new". 

[HappyChristian]

Just fyi, @BrotherTony, swath is not a "one-hit wonder..." He's been a member here for quite a number of years.

~~~~~

Not directed at anyone in particular, but apropos to several posters, sadly:

Why must so many answers to each other be filled with antagonism? It seems that if one poster writes something with which another disagrees, it's full stop to see who can become the snarkiest. Sure glad none of them is my spiritual leader, cuz I would not follow them. 

[BrotherTony]

1 hour ago, HappyChristian said:

Just fyi, @BrotherTony, swath is not a "one-hit wonder..." He's been a member here for quite a number of years.

~~~~~

Not directed at anyone in particular, but apropos to several posters, sadly:

Why must so many answers to each other be filled with antagonism? It seems that if one poster writes something with which another disagrees, it's full stop to see who can become the snarkiest. Sure glad none of them is my spiritual leader, cuz I would not follow them. 

It's apparent that swath isn't a "one-hit-wonder" and was more directed at the post he gave to defend the coloring of the pages of the Codex, not him in particular. There are a LOT of people, including myself in this thread, who posted only one link...I could have posted HUNDREDS that refuted his position. I never anywhere stated that he HADN'T been here for years. I've seen many of his posts and knew he wasn't new. 

[swathdiver]

Forty years ago very few people had ever set eyes on the Sinaiticus.  I doubt many even questioned it though sure some did, I wasn't a Christian then.

 

So, what is its chain of custody?  Why is there only one copy?  Who are those men and what is their relation to the text?  If you do know them, why do you discount their writings about the origin of the Sinaiticus?

[Jerry]

Sinaiticus is the copy of the Alexandrian Text. It is not a stand alone text, but a copy of another text. Though it is corrupt to the hilt due to all its corrections and editing. The Vaticanus is also another copy of the Alexandrian text. It has been too long since I did research on this so cannot remember what specific edition of the Alexandrian text or the exact date it was compiled or translated into Latin, and then copied. Possibly it was the from the 50 copies of Jerome's text that was authorized by the Pope in the fourth or fifth century. (Though don't shoot me if you think I am wrong here - I am just stating what comes to mind and might be the source, due to my faulty memory.)

[Johann]

On 12/16/2021 at 11:21 PM, Jerry said:

Hm, for those who want the context, I think looking up the whole chapter is reasonable context. Looking up 1 Timothy 3 in all these versions, and we find that there is NO mention of Jesus Christ, the Messiah, being God or God manifest in the flesh, which is what verse 16 says in the KJV and the Greek Received Texts.

The ASV, Amplified, both versions of the NASV, the GNB (TEV), HCSB, TLB, The Message, NIV, NRSV. Those are the ones I am most familiar with.

So how is that for removing one word - in the context of the whole chapter - removing the whole doctrine found in that one chapter of Jesus Christ being God manifest in the flesh (ie. the incarnation). Sure, there may be other passages elsewhere (but how many directly state it?), that still have this doctrine - BUT you don't have to 100% remove a doctrine to minimalize it or make it seemingly unimportant. That's 10 modern versions that completely remove that doctrine from that chapter. Is the Messiah God manifest in the flesh, asks the world? Well, not according to 1 Timothy.

 

Christ Jesus not God?

Isa_7:14  Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Isa_9:6  For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

J.