Oh, the Modern Versions Don't Really Change Any Doctrines

[SGO]

https://brandplucked.com/nodoctrinechanged.htm

 

No Doctrines Are Changed?

 

 

I often hear those who criticize the King James Bible and defend the multiple modern versions say: "Well, no doctrines are changed in the different versions." But is this true? Not at all, as we shall soon see. The Number One Doctrine that has been destroyed by today's Bible Babble Buffet versions is the belief in the Infallibility of the Bible!  Recent polls show that the majority of professing Christians no longer believe in the Infallibility of the Bible and among seminarians and professional clergy the percentages are in the 90's of those who do not believe that any Bible in any language is the complete and inerrant words of God. If you do not think this is a major doctrine then it is probably already too late for you to be persuaded otherwise.  Don't just take my word for it. Here are the polls that show this widespread and ever growing unbelief in the Inerrancy of the Bible - ANY Bible.

The Basic Doctrine of the Infallibility of the Bible -

I have been engaged in the Bible version issue for several years now and have been quite active in several Bible clubs on the internet. Over the years I have posted countless articles and examples of the literally hundreds of very real and significant textual differences, contradictions and totally changed meanings found in hundreds of verses among the Bible Babble Buffet versions out there today that NOBODY seriously believes IS the complete, inspired and infallible words of God.  What I have found to be almost universally true is the typical response  of those I refer to as "Bible agnostics" always come up with is shown by this recent post at our Facebook club called the King James Bible Debate. 

After I posted one more in an almost endless series of very real textual differences that changes the meaning of a verse of Scripture and where not even the modern versions agree among themselves, a man who does not believe that any Bible in any language is the infallible words of God posted the following:

 "Let me see - what doctrine exactly is impacted here? Other than the presupposed doctrine of KJV onlyism? Indeed, redemption as we know it rests on this verse!"

My Response:

Hi folks. This is the standard mantra every confirmed bible agnostic and unbeliever in the Infallibility of the Scriptures always repeats when faced with the FACT that he has no infallible TEXT of any Bible on this earth to give someone or to believe in himself -"What doctrine is impacted here?"

How about the simple and basic doctrine of the Infallibility of the Bible?  Is this a doctrine any of these bible relativists are concerned about or thinks is at all important to the Christian faith?

The bible agnostics like James White and John Piper and a multitude of other big name Christians and countless hoards of lesser lights like our Bible agnostic friend here all want to give you the impression that they are "Bible" believers, but the simple and obvious fact is this - Not one of them REALLY believes God has preserved His infallible words in any "book of the LORD".  They do not believe the Book. Oh, they may believe selected portions, and some parts of many, but there is not a single Bible on this earth  they believe EVERY word is the infallible words of the living God.

THAT is the doctrine that is most assuredly impacted - It's the whole foundation of everything God has revealed to us about Himself and what we believe about our Redeemer and Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. He either told us the truth when He said that heaven and earth shall pass away but His words would not pass away, or He lied to us and cannot be trusted.  You pick which option you are going to believe.

"He that hath ears to hear, let him hear."  Luke 8:8

 

See "The Bible is NOT the inspired and Infallible word of God"

http://brandplucked.webs.com/thebiblenotinspired.htm 

There are presently well over 100 different English bible versions available to the general public and none of them agrees with the others in both text and meaning in hundreds of verses. This is easily proved and well noted by many atheist, Muslim and Bible basher sites on the internet.

Which of these different bibles is really the inspired, inerrant words of God? Or have the complete, pure, inerrant words of God been lost in the shuffle and God has failed to preserve His words as He promised? Is it true that "no doctrines are changed" in the various conflicting versions?

Some Christians say, "Well, only the originals were inspired." Since we don't have any of the originals and nobody knows what they really said, how can we then say the Bible is the inspired word of God? Shouldn't we say the bible WAS the inspired word of God?

I and thousands of other Christians believe God has kept His promises to preserve His words and He has done so in the King James Holy Bible. In general terms the overall state of textual evidence and ancient versions is overwhelmingly on the side of the King James Bible readings as opposed to such versions as the NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV, and ISV.

However, one can argue back and forth over the textual evidence till you are either red or blue in the face, and prove nothing. For me and many other Bible believers, we clearly see the Providential hand of God placing His divine approval upon the King James Bible that has been universally recognized as THE BIBLE of the English speaking world for almost 400 years. 

See the hand of God in history in this article called The Absolute Standard of Written Truth = the King James Bible

http://brandplucked.webs.com/absolutestandard.htm

One of the clear and convincing proofs that the King James Bible is the complete, inerrant, and pure words of God is the purity and truth of its Christ exalting doctrines. Proverbs 14:5 tells us: "A faithful witness will not lie: but a false witness will utter lies." There are many lies found in the new bible versions and it is the accumulation of such lies that reveal them to be false witnesses to the whole truth of God.

Modern versionists say they are examining the evidence to come up with the best text to restore the words of God. The problem with this is, the new versions continue to disagree with each other in both texts and meaning in a multitude of places. I believe God has already gone through this process using the men He chose to bring forth the King James Bible. If God has already done this in order to preserve His words and carry out the great modern missionary movement from the late 1700's to the mid 1900's, there is no need to do it again, unless He decides to put His complete words into a language other than English.

Some speak of the same General Message being found in all "reliable" versions. True, the simple gospel can be found in them all. Yet in all of them we also find contradictions concerning the basic truths of the character of God and we find corruptions of other sound doctrines.

The "Any Bible Will Do" position leads to uncertainty, doubt and unbelief. There are a multitude of contradictory versions, with several whole verses being found in some that are not in others. Seventeen entire verses, and about half of another 50 are omitted from the New Testament in the NIV, NASB, and even more in the RSV, which omits some 45 entire verses from its text, and the ESV (omits 18 entire verses), when compared to the King James Bible, Tyndale, Bishop's, Geneva, Webster's, the NKJV, and the Third Millenium Bible.

The examples in the following list, except Luke 2:22, and John 7:8, are not the result of different Greek and Hebrew texts being used, as is often the case, but rather of different ways the same underlying texts have been translated into English.

 

Does the true Lord Jesus Christ have an "ORIGIN from ancient times" as taught in Micah 5:2 by the NIV, RSV, ESV, Holman Standard, Jehovah Witness New World Translation, St. Joseph New American bible 1970 and Catholic New Jerusalem bible 1985, or were His "goings forth from everlasting" as the King James Bible, NKJV, NASB have it? One reading teaches His eternality, while the other says He has an origin or a beginning.

For a further discussion of Micah 5:2 and the heretical reading found in the NIV, RSV, ESV please see the following article I have put together on this.

 

http://brandplucked.webs.com/micah52heb211origin.htm

 

Is the Jesus Christ in your Bible the one who lied in John 7:8 as the NASB, ESV, St. Joseph NAB, New Jerusalem bible read?

John 7:8-10 Here we read of Jesus telling his brethren to go up unto a feast and He says: "I go NOT up YET unto this feast; for my time is not yet full come. When he had said these words unto them, he abode still in Gallilee. But when his brethren were gone up, then went he also up unto the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret." He did in fact go up to the feast.

Vaticanus, as well as P66, 75, and the majority of all texts read as does the KJB with: "I go not up YET unto this feast", and so do the Revised Version 1881, Geneva, Tyndale, Bishops', Coverdale, the NIV, Holman Standard, the 2005 ISV (International Standard Version), Young, Weymouth, Rotherham's Emphasized Bible 1902.

However Sinaiticus says: "I DO NOT GO to this feast", and so do the NASB, ASV, RSV, ESV , Catholic St. Joseph NAB, New Jerusalem bible 1985, and Wallace's NET version thus making our Lord a liar. The fickle nature of this so called "science" is also seen in that Westcott and Hort originally read "NOT YET" and so did the previous Nestle-Aland critical texts up until a few years ago. But the more recent ones have "scientifically" changed to now read "I do NOT go to this feast."

Daniel Wallace's NET version has the Lord saying He is NOT going to the feast, and then going. But the thinking of such "scholars" is revealed in his own footnotes where he says: " Most mss (Ì66,75 B L T W 070 0105 0250 Ë1,13 Ï sa), including most of the better witnesses, have “not yet” here. Those with the reading "not" (ouk) are not as impressive ( D K 1241 al lat), but "ouk" is the more difficult reading here, especially because it stands in tension with v. 10."

 So, in other words, because it absurdly makes our Lord Jesus a liar, it must be right!

Wilbur Pickering, who himself is not even a KJB onlyist, comments on this blunder: Serious Anomalies/Aberrations -John 7:8 oupw - P66,75,B,E,F,G,H,L,N,T,W,X,D,Q,Y, 070,0105,0141,0250,f1,13, Byz, Lect, Syriac Pe(I have a potty mouth)ta, Palestinian, Harkelian, Coptic Sahidic,  "NOT YET" ; ouk --À, D, K, P, lat, Syriac Sinaitic, Coptic Boharic "NOT" Problem: Since Jesus did in fact go to the feast (and doubtless knew what He was going to do), the UBS text has the effect of ascribing a falsehood to Him.

Discussion: Since the UBS editors usually attach the highest value to P75 and B, isn't it strange that they reject them in this case? Here is Metzger's explanation: "The reading ["not yet"] was introduced at an early date (it is attested by P66,75) in order to alleviate the inconsistency between ver. 8 and ver. 10" (p. 216). So, they rejected P66,75 and B (as well as 99% of the MSS) because they preferred the "inconsistency". NASB, RSV, NEB and TEV stay with the eclectic text here. (end of comments by Dr. Pickering.)

Also in just these three verses we see that the word “this” of THIS FEAST is omitted by Vaticanus but found in  Sinaiticus, but the NASB and NIV both omit the word, while "UNTO THEM" is in the NASB and Vaticanus, but not in the NIV or Sinaiticus. and "AS IT WERE" is in Vaticanus and the NASB, but not in Sinaiticus and the NIV. This is the character of these two manuscripts and bible versions in a nutshell.

Did the Lord Jesus Christ need a blood sacrifice to be cleansed from sin in Luke 2:22 as the NASB, ESV, Holman, St. Joseph NAB, Catholic New Jerusalem bible and NIV teach? These versions read: "when the days for THEIR purification according to the law of Moses were completed...to offer a sacrifice", as opposed to the King James Bible, the NKJV, Bishop's Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, Webster's 1833 translation, and the Third Millenium Bible which have "when the days of HER purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished...to offer a sacrifice". Wycliffe's 1395 translation says "the days of the purification of Mary". The only Old Testament reference for this sin offering to make an atonement is found in Leviticus 12:6-8 where the woman alone offered a sin offering for her purification.

Can God be deceived as the NASB and Holman teach in Ps. 78:36? The NASB and the Holman Standard say the children of Israel DECEIVED GOD with their mouths, but the NKJV, KJB, NIV, RV, ASV, ESV all say they "flattered" God with their mouths and lied unto Him. You can flatter God by saying nice things about Him but not obeying Him, but you certainly cannot deceive God.

For a much fuller discussion of this NASB blunder, and how one modern versionist tries to defend it, please see my article on this here. It is found in the second part of the article. The first part is interesting too

 

http://brandplucked.webs.com/eze149ps7836deceive.htm

 

Is the Lord Jesus Christ the ONLY BEGOTTEN SON of God BEFORE His incarnation? The NIV never refers to Christ as "the only begotten Son". Christ was the only begotten Son from all eternity, but not in the NIV.

The NIV, ISV, and Holman Standard pervert true doctrine in Acts 13:33 where the Bible speaks of the resurrection of Christ. He was quickened from the dead and raised again to life to become "the first begotten of the dead" (Revelation 1:5), and "the firstborn from the dead (Colossians 1:18).

In Psalm 2 and Acts 13:33 God says and ALL GREEK TEXTS read: "God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus AGAIN: as it is also written in the second Psalm, Thou art my Son, THIS DAY HAVE I BEGOTTEN THEE". This is the reading found in the RV, ASV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, NASB, NKJV. The specific Day that Christ was begotten from the dead was that first Easter morning. However the NIV, and now the new ISV (International Standard Version) and the Holman Christian Standard Version actually say "Today I HAVE BECOME YOUR FATHER"!!! The Catholic New Jerusalem bible of 1985 says: "today I HAVE FATHERED YOU."

The NIV, ISV, Catholic New Jerusalem and Holman version here teach that there was a time when God was not the Father of Christ. This is also the reading of the Jehovah witness version, the New World translation, and they use this verse and Micah 5:2, which also reads the same in their version as does the NIV, ESV, St. Joseph, New Jerusalem bible to prove that Jesus Christ is a created being and not from everlasting.

Please see my article about the Only Begotten Son for more detail:  

http://brandplucked.webs.com/john118begottenson.htm

Another doctrinal error is found in the NKJV, NIV, NASB, ESV, Holman and others in 2 Samuel 14:14.

The context is Absalom had slain Amnon because he raped his sister Tamar. Absalom fled to Geshur and was there for three years, yet the soul of king David longed for his son Absalom. Joab decides to put words in the mouth of a wise woman from Tekoah and he sends her to speak to the king.

In the course of their conversation the woman tells king David: "the king doth speak this thing as one which is faulty, in that the king doth not fetch home again his banished. For we must needs die, and are as water spilt on the ground, which cannot be gathered up again; NEITHER DOTH GOD RESPECT ANY PERSON: yet doth he devise means, that his banished be not expelled from him."

The meaning is pretty straightforward. We all must die and God does not respect any person or show partiality to one more than another in this regard.

Other Bible versions that read as the King James Bible are the Geneva Bible of 1599, the Jewish Publication Society of America's 1917 translation, Young's "literal" translation, Daniel Webster's 1833 translation, the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras, the KJV 21st Century version and the Third Millenium Bible.

However when we get to the New KJV, ESV, the NIV, Holman, and the NASB instead of "neither doth God respect any person" they read "YET GOD DOES NOT TAKE AWAY LIFE". This is untrue and a contradiction.

Just two chapters before this event we read of the child born to David in his adulterous affair with Bathseba that "the LORD struck the child, and it was very sick" and on the seventh day it died. (2 Samuel 12:15). In Deuteronomy 32:39 God Himself says: "I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand." In Genesis 38:7 and 10 we read of two wicked sons of Judah, Er and Onan "and the LORD SLEW him", and "wherefore he slew him also."

1 Samuel 2:6 tells us: "The LORD killeth, and maketh alive: he bringeth down to the grave, and bringeth up." And 2 Samuel 6:7 says: "And the anger of the LORD was kindled against Uzzah. and God smote him there for his error: and there he died by the ark of God."

God obviously does take away life, and the NKJV, NIV, Holman, and NASB are all in error in 2 Samuel 14:14 where they say that He doesn't take away life.

In 2 Peter 3:12 the King James Bible, Tyndale, Geneva and others correctly say we are "looking for and HASTING UNTO the coming of the day of God". The date is already fixed in God's timetable and nothing we can do will make it come any faster. It is we who in our fleeting lives are fast moving towards that day. However the NKJV, NIV, NASB, ESV , St. Joseph NAB, Catholic New Jerusalem bible all teach that we can "speed" or "hasten" the coming of the day of God. This contradicts numerous other Scriptures and is a false doctrine.

See my article dealing with this verse in much more detail at:

 

http://brandplucked.webs.com/2peter312hastingunto.htm

 

Who rules or is in control of this world, God or Satan?

In I John 5:19 the King James Bible along with the Tyndale 1525, Bishop's Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, Young's, the Spanish Reina Valera of 1602, and 1909 (y todo el mundo está puesto en maldad), Lamsa's translation of the Pe(I have a potty mouth)ta, Webster's 1833 translation, the Douay-Rheims 1950, the KJV 21st Century version, Green's literal translation and Green's Modern KJV, and the Third Millenium Bible all say: "And we know that we are of God, and THE WHOLE WORLD LIETH IN WICKEDNESS."

Miles Coverdale's 1535 translation says: "We know that we are of God, and the whole world is set altogether in wickedness."

We live in a fallen world; it lies in sin and wickedness, just as the text says. But God is still in control and ruling over all His creation. "He worketh all things after the counsel of his own will" Ephesians 1:11. Daniel 4:17,25,26 tell us three times that "the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will." Even though it may appear that wickedness is winning, the eye of faith sees His sovereignty and rejoices in this confidence.

However, believe it or not, many new versions change the truth of God's sovereign rule and would have us believe that Satan is the ruler of this world and is in control. In fact, they come right out and say it in these exact words.

The NIV says: "The whole world is UNDER THE CONTROL OF THE EVIL ONE."

NASB " the whole world lies in the power of the evil one."

Today's English Version "the whole world is under the rule of the Evil One."

ESV (English Standard Version) "the whole world lies in the power of the evil one."

Living Bible 1981 "the world around us is under Satan's power and control."

ISV (International Standard Version) "the whole world lies under the control of the evil one."

Catholic St. Joseph New American Bible 1970 "the whole world is under the evil one."

 Catholic New Jerusalem bible 1985 - "the whole world is in the power of the Evil One."

The NKJV, and the Holman Christian Standard Bible try to strike a medium with : " the whole world lies under the sway of the wicked one" but the NKJV as well as the NASB are also wrong when three times they refer to Satan as the "ruler of this world" in John 12:31; 14:30, and 16:11. Satan is NOT the ruler of this world. He is the spiritual "prince of this world", as the KJB, RV, ASV, Tyndale, Geneva, and even the NIV correctly say, but there are also other spiritual "princes" or beings working among the nations, and all of them are under the control of God and not Satan.

For a more detailed study of who rules the world see:

http://brandplucked.webs.com/satanorgodcontrols.htm

What is the fine linen, clean and white?

Our only hope of righteousness before God is to be clothed with the imputed righteousness of Christ. Revelation 19:8 speaks of the church of God, the wife of the Lamb being arrayed in fine linen, clean and white. "for the FINE LINEN IS THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF SAINTS."

Versions that read like the King James Bible are Tyndale's New Testament of 1534, Miles Coverdale 1535, Bishop's Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible of 1599, John Wesley's 1755 translation, Green’s interlinear, Webster's translation of 1833, the Spanish Reina Valera of 1909, the Bible in Basic English 1970, Lamsa's translation of the Syriac Pe(I have a potty mouth)ta, the Third Millenium Bible, the 21st Century KJV, and even the modern paraphrase called The Message.

But the NKJV, NASB, ESV, ISV, Holman Christian Standard Bible, the NIV , the Catholic St. Joesph NAB and the Catholic New Jerusalem have, “the fine linen is the RIGHTEOUS ACTS of the saints.” (or "the righteous deeds of God's people") If our righteous acts are going to make up our wedding dress, it will be pretty soiled and tattered. At the very least, you have to admit that not all these versions teach the same thing here. So, which one is true?

Matthew Henry notes: "You have here a description of the bride, how she appeared in fine linen, clean and white, which is the righteousness of saints; in the robes of Christ’s righteousness... She had washed her robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb; and these her nuptial ornaments she did not purchase by any price of her own, but received them as the gift and grant of her blessed Lord."

John Gill comments: "for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints, not good works, or their own righteousness;... these are not comparable to fine linen, clean and white, but are like filthy rags, and cannot justify in the sight of God; but the righteousness of Christ is meant, and justification by that; for that is the only justifying righteousness of the saints.

"Christ's righteousness may be compared to fine linen, clean and white... all the Lord's people will be righteous, they will have on the best robe, and wedding garment, and their being arrayed with it will be owing to the grace of Christ, who grants it. Not only the garment is a gift of grace, but the putting of it on is a grant from Christ, and what he himself does, (Isaiah 61:10) (Zechariah 3:4)."

(To see more on "the fine linen is the righteousness of saints" in Revelation 19:8 please see the article here:

http://brandplucked.webs.com/rev198finelinen.htm  ) 

1 Corinthians 8:4 "we know that an idol is nothing in the world" - this is the meaning found in the Geneva Bible, Holman Christian Standard, Darby, NIV, NKJV, and even the Douay version too. However the NASB says: "there is no such thing as an idol in the world". No idols in the world, huh?

Hosea 11:12 KJB "But Judah yet RULETH WITH GOD, AND IS FAITHFUL WITH THE SAINTS." The Bible versions that agree with the King James Bible in that Judah IS YET FAITHFUL are the Bishops' Bible, the Geneva Bible, the RV, ASV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, Darby, Young, Spanish Reina Valera, Green's interlinear, the Hebrew-English 1936, and the Third Millenium Bible.

But the NKJV puts a new twist here saying: "But Judah still walks with God, even with the Holy One, who is faithful."

This time Daniel Wallace's NET version agrees in the main with the KJB saying: "But Judah still roams about with God; he remains faithful to the Holy One."

The NASB, NIV, TNIV, Catholic St. Joseph NAB completely spin this verse around to mean the opposite with: "And Judah is UNRULY AGAINST God, even against the faithful Holy One." The St. Joseph NAB says: "Judah is STILL REBELLIOUS AGAINST God."  But the other Catholic bible- the New Jerusalem- confuses things with "But Judah still is on God's side."  Guess we need a "priest" or scholar ;-0 to sort this out for us, huh?

The Holman Standard has come up with a different rendering, saying: "Judah STILL WANDERS WITH EL, AND IS FAITHFUL TO HOLY ONES." Say what?!? Then it tells us in a footnote that the Hebrew is obscure. If you think the Hebrew is obscure, then the English translations are downright mind-boggling. So which, if any, of the multiple-choice bible versions is the true word of God?

Daniel 9:26 "shall Messiah cut off, but NOT FOR HIMSELF"

An extremely important Messianic prophecy about the significance of the death of Christ has been drastically changed in a multitude of conflicting modern versions.

"And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, BUT NOT FOR HIMSELF."

The Messiah, the Lord Jesus Christ, was killed not for Himself but for His people. He laid down His life as a ransom for many. He gave Himself for the church, laid down His life for the sheep, and purchased the church of God with His own blood.

There is no verb in the Hebrew text here. It reads "but not for himself". This is also the reading of the Bishop's Bible 1568, the NKJV 1982, Spanish Reina Valera 1960 (se quitará la vida al Mesías, mas no por sí), Webster's 1833 translation, the Third Millenium Bible and the KJV 21. Even the NIV footnote gives the reading of the King James Bible "or, cut off, but not for Himself", but the text of the NIV reads quite differently.

Christ was to make reconciliation for iniquity and bring in everlasting righteousness, as verse Daniel 9:24 tells us. Matthew Henry comments: "In order to all this the Messiah must be cut off, must die a violent death, and so be cut off from the land of the living, as was foretold, Isaiah 53:8 - "for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken." He must be cut off, but not for himself — not for any sin of his own, but, as Caiaphas prophesied, he must die for the people, in our stead and for our good, it was to atone for our sins, and to purchase life for us, that he was cut off."

John Wesley tersely remarks: " Not for himself - But for our sakes, and for our salvation."

Matthew Poole writes in his commentary - "our English translation seems to hit the truest sense, i. e. not for himself. He was innocent and guiltless, he died for others, not for himself, but for our sakes and for our salvation."  

David Guzik's Commentary says simply: "The Messiah will be cut off for the sake of others, not for Himself."

John Gill offfers this explanation first: " when Jesus the true Messiah was cut off in a judicial way; not for any sins of his own, but for the sins of his people, to make satisfaction for them, and to obtain their redemption and salvation."

However, the NIV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, Holman, and NASB read: "Messiah shall be cut off AND HAVE NOTHING." Messiah shall have nothing?!? He purchased His people and bought His bride with His own blood! He certainly did not "have nothing".

Here are some other "bible versions" and their readings for comparison. See if this clears things up for us and verifies the statement made by some that "There are no conflicting bibles".

Coverdale 1535 "Christ shall be slain AND THEY SHALL HAVE NO PLEASURE IN HIM."

The Message 2002 - "After the sixty-two sevens, the Anointed Leader will be killed--THE END OF HIM."

New English bible 1970- "one who is anointed shall be removed WITH NO ONE TO TAKE HIS PART."

Young's - "cut off is Messiah AND THE CITY AND THE HOLY PLACE ARE NOT."

1917 Jewish Publication Society translation - "shall an anointed one be cut off AND BE NO MORE." (again not true)

St. Joseph New American Bible 1970 - "an anointed one shall be cut off WHEN HE DOES NOT POSSESS THE CITY."

Douay 1950 - "Christ shall be slain AND THE PEOPLE WHO DENY HIM SHALL NOT BE HIS."

Lamsa's 1933 - "Messiah shall be slain AND THE CITY SHALL BE WITHOUT A RULER."

Catholic New Jerusalem bible 1985  - "An Anointed One put to death without his...city and sanctuary ruined by a prince who is to come."  That is actually how it reads!

The Septuagint (LXX) - "the anointed one shall be destroyed AND THERE IS NO JUDGMENT IN HIM."

Men like James White tell us that by comparing all the bible versions we get a much better idea of what God really said. Do you think all these bibles have the same general message and clarify the true meaning for us?

This is the type of foolishness being promoted by those who tell us there are no conflicting bible versions and that they all have the same ideas but with different words. This one example from Daniel 9:26 can easily be repeated a hundred times over with many individual verses.

These are just a few of the problems you have if you think God is the one directing the modern versionists. This God seems more than a little confused and muddled in his thinking. He can't seem to make up his mind as to what he said or meant.

If you think all these modern versions are from God, you have no sure words and your case is getting worse all the time as new versions continue to roll off the presses which in turn contradict the previous ones.

Isn't there something written in the Bible that tells us of the falling away from the faith in the last days? Has Satan changed his hateful opposition and corrupting influence toward the words of God? Has man "evolved" to a higher state in these latter days to where he can now think more clearly?

If the gospel of salvation in Jesus Christ is found only in the Bible, and this "bible" contains contradictions, false information, completely different meanings in hundreds of places, verses found in some but not in others, then how do we know the gospel of which it speaks is true?

If God hasn't kept His promises to preserve His words, then how do you know God will keep His promise to preserve your soul? When does God start telling the truth?

Do you still think that "no doctrines are changed" in the various versions? Is the Bible the inspired, inerrant words of God? If so, what exactly are you referring to when you say this? Some mystical bible that exists in your own mind, or a solid Book we can hold in our hands, read, believe and preach to a lost world?

Will Kinney

 Return to Articles - http://brandplucked.webs.com/articles.htm 

 

No Doctrines Are Changed?