Exposing!! The Corrupt Counterfeit (NIV) Bible, Verses That Have Been Tamped With!!

[WithinReason]

So my advice is to learn about manuscripts.

Looking at Mss, and the vast evidence for this reading in 1 Timothy 3:16,

1Ti_3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.​

why would you (and others) follow the NIV and NWT's choice to remove the word "God" and replace it with a nonsensical "He"?

The NIV and NWT follow the same spirit:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Timothy+3:16&version=NIV

https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/study-bible/books/1-timothy/3/

​

Additionally:

"... Secondly, the textual evidence for the reading "GOD was manifest in the flesh" is massive. It is the reading found in the Majority of all remaining Greek manuscripts we have today. Of the 300 known Greek cursive copies we have of the epistle of Paul to Timothy 254 of them read "GOD was manifest in the flesh".​

​

This is also the reading found in Sinaiticus correction, A correction, C correction and D correction. Even among these 4, in their previously uncorrected forms, they disagreed with each other and none of them is grammatically correct. Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus and C used to read "who" (ὃς) and mss. D used to read "which" (ὃ) but neither reading is even good Greek grammar.​

​

There is NO Vaticanus reading because the Vatican manuscript is missing all of First and Second Timothy, as well as Titus, several chapters of Hebrews as well as the entire book of Revelation. In other words, ALL four of the so called 5 great uncial copies that contain this portion of the Scriptures were seen as being defective and were corrected very early on by Christian Scribes.​

​

"GOD was manifest in the flesh" is the reading of other uncial copies as well including K, L, P, Psi. It is the reading found in the early Byzantine Lectionaries, the Georgian and Slavonic ancient versions and is so quoted by numerous early Christian writers.​

​

In his book, The Revision Revised, Dean Burgon (pages 450, 454, 489-90) also cites the Georgian (6th century), Harkleian Syriac (616 AD) and the Slavonic (9th cent.) versions as reading "God." The fathers in support of this passage are as follows (Burgon, p 486-90):​

​

1st Century: Ignatius (90 AD); 2nd Century: Hippolytus (190 AD); 3rd Century: Apostolic Constitutions, Epistle ascribed to Dionysius of Alexandria (264 AD), Gregory Thaumaturgus; 4th Century: Basil the Great (355 AD), Chrysostom (380 AD), Didymus (325 AD), Diodorus (370 AD), Gregory of Nazianzus (355 AD), Gregory of Nyssa (370 AD). "Euthalian" chapter title of I Tim. 3, attesting to "God in the flesh."; 5th Century: Anon. citation in works of Athanasius (430 AD), Cyril of Alexandria (410 AD), Euthalius (458 AD), Macedonius 11(496 AD), Theodoret (420 AD); 6th Century: Severus, Bishop of Antioch (512 AD); 8th Century: Epiphanius of Catana (787 AD), John Damascene (730 AD), Theodorus Studita (790 AD); 10th Century: Ecumenius (990 AD); 11th Century: Theophylact (1077 AD); 12th Century: Euthymius (1116 AD).​

​

Hippolytus (170-236 A.D.) "God was manifested in the flesh." (Against the Heresies of Noetus I: 1:17), and Dionysius (3rd cent.) "For God was manifested in the flesh." (Conciliations I: 1:853)​

​

"GOD was manifest in the flesh" is also the reading of the Greek texts of Ximenes, Erasmus, Stephanus 1550, Beza 1598, Elzevir 1624, Scrivener 1894 and the Hodges and Farstad Majority Text Greek New Testament 1982. It IS the Reformation text. ..." - https://brandplucked.webs.com/1timothy316godorhe.htm​

​

Additionally:

"... This alteration has been discussed exhaustively by Burgon (14) pp 101-5, 424-504, whose researches have been summarized by the TBS (58) "God was Manifest in the Flesh." See also Fuller, citing the TBS, (32) p 24A1. ...​

​

... The most ancient Greek uncial in favour of "God" in 1 Tim. 3:16, is Codex A (5th cent.). Burgon (p 432-436) cites in detail the witnesses who attest to the horizontal stroke of "Theta" in "Theos" being clearly visible up to the mid 18th century. The TBS pamphlet provides an excellent Summary. In support of A are uncials K, L and P, ("Mosquensis," "Angelicus" and "Porphyrianus" resp.) all of the 9th century.​

​

The extant cursive copies of Paul's letters number 300, of which 254 (designated "Paul 1" to "Paul 301") contain 1 Tim. 3:16. Of these, no less than 252 read "God," in agreement with this passage. (The two exceptions, which have already been discussed, are "Paul 17" and "Paul 73," of which the latter is a doubtful witness.) Added to this favourable testimony are 29 out of 32 Lectionary copies from the Eastern Church, reaching back to earliest times t.e. before Aleph, which support the reading "God." (Burgon, p 478, declares the 3 exceptions to be "Western documents of suspicious character.")​

​

Burgon p 450, 454, 489-90. also cites the Georgian (6th century), Harkleian Syriac (616 AD) and the Slavonic (9th cent.) versions as reading "God." The fathers in support of this passage are as follows (Burgon, p 486-90):​

​

1st Century: Barnabus, Ignatius (90 AD); 2nd Century: Hippolytus (190 AD); 3rd Century: Apostolic Constitutions, Epistle ascribed to Dionysius of Alexandria (264 AD), Gregory Thaumaturgus; 4th Century: Basil the Great (355 AD), Chrysostom (380 AD), Didymus (325 AD), Diodorus (370 AD), Gregory of Nazianzus (355 AD), Gregory of Nyssa (370 AD). "Euthalian" chapter title of I Tim. 3, attesting to "God in the flesh."; 5th Century: Anon. citation in works of Athanasius (430 AD), Cyril of Alexandria (410 AD), Euthalius (458 AD), Macedonius 11(496 AD), Theodoret (420 AD); 6th Century: Severus, Bishop of Antioch (512 AD); 8th Century: Epiphanius of Catana (787 AD), John Damascene (730 AD), Theodorus Studita (790 AD); 10th Century: Ecumenius (990 AD); 11th Century: Theophylact (1077 AD); 12th Century: Euthymius (1116 AD).​

​

See also Fuller (4) p 110-1, (32) p98, 260 (summarizing Burgon's final findings as 300 Greek manuscripts (uncial, cursive, lectionary), reading "God" in 1 Tim. 3:16, vs. 7 which do not), Hills (3) p 137-8, Ruckman (31)See also Part 3 for further discussion on the evidence for this passage reading for this verse. ..." - http://ecclesia.org/truth/manuscript_evidence.html​

​

Additionally:

Burgon may be read here in full - The Revision Revised – Dean John William Burgon (PDF)​

 

[fredoheaven]

Matthew 6:27
New International Version
Can any one of you by worrying add a single hour to your life?

New Living Translation
Can all your worries add a single moment to your life?

English Standard Version
And which of you by being anxious can add a single hour to his span of life?

Berean Study Bible
Who of you by worrying can add a single hour to his life?

New American Standard Bible
"And who of you by being worried can add a single hour to his life?

NET Bible
And which of you by worrying can add even one hour to his life?

Going to earlier English Versions would vindicate the reading of KJV over modern English versions. Not to mention all of these including Wycliffe 1382 and other Reformation Bibles, the Anglo-Saxon Wessex gospel 990 AD provides a good translation and supports the KJV as well.
Anglo-Saxon Wessex Gospel 990 AD for Matthew 6:27

​

hwilc eower maig soðlice þencen þæt he ge-eacnige enne elne to his anlichnysse.


An online lexicon proved that this is not in reference to “age” as the passage is concern. “Elne” or “ell” simply means “cubit” a measure of length not days but the space from the point of the elbow to the end of the middle finger presumably 18 inches and anlichnysse or anlicnesse means “stature” not “life”. God bless.
http://lexicon.ff.cuni.cz/html/oe_bosworthtoller/b0247.html
http://lexicon.ff.cuni.cz/html/oe_bosworthtoller/b0044.html

Hi lucie,

Why the post get old? What do you mean? Are you bothered with this post? Haven't the critical scholars says the same thing that the "old is the best"? For one thing, do you not realize that Anglo Saxon is the earliest form of English language and I am taking my shot to it? or perhaps you suspect this post as a cut/copy and paste and that's why it's too old. If you want to put input or say something, say so but be sure to back up with scripture or evidence or proof.

God bless,

 

[fredoheaven]

What you say is true.

However, I was referring to a translation of the entire Bible.

Umm, I have already given you one biblical evidence about translation and you want more...if I have give another one about translation in the Bible will that be enough.

Thank you and God bless you

 

[fredoheaven]

I believe that the whole of God's word is preserved in heaven.

Psalm 119: 89 For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven.

Maybe it 's time for me to be taught about "preserved in heaven" and "settled in heaven". are you saying they are the same?

Expound more please...

Thank you

 

[fredoheaven]

To those who dislike and felt indifferently, why?

Thanks

 

[Dino246]

To those who dislike and felt indifferently, why?

Thanks

Simple: if the mathematical "miracles" aren't present in the original-language texts, they are irrelevant. Any that are present in the original languages are there by God's design and the KJV just happens to preserve them, meaning it's nothing special.

 

[Lightskin]

My suggestion is that all you KJV-onlyists PLEASE do not use anything but the KJV.

My second suggestion is to leave the rest of us ALONE. We have had these "discussions" on here for literally YEARS, and nobody has been convinced, one way or the other, of whom I am aware. All you are doing is spreading hatred and discord. How about you simply allow people to use the version they want to use, and let the Spirit guide them in their understanding. I seriously doubt many of us are going to perform any exorcisms, and need to know whether to use fasting AND prayer. That has nothing to do with our salvation.

You go play amongst yourselves, arguing jots and tittles, backslapping each other on your pious "correctness"....

This ^^^^^ 😎

 

[Dino246]

To those who dislike and felt indifferently, why?

Thanks

As I have responded to your inquiry, perhaps you could explain why you put an "Old" icon on my post #348?

 

[Dan_473]

There is another alternative which is more in line with what we know of synagogues. He quoted from different portions of Isaiah and strung his quote together as was the practice of Jewish rabbis. That is called haphtarah as read in Jewish synagogues.

I believe Luke says
The spirit of the Lord is upon me

Isaiah says
The spirit of the Lord God is upon me

It's very close, but it's not exact.

 

[Dan_473]

That is a misunderstanding of that text. They (outside of scripture) were not defining God's word. They were reading God's word, line upon line, yet it was in a language that they all did not understand clearly being a mixed nation, and some needed translation, and so allowing it to define itself, thus "caused the people to understand the law" (not themselves).

​

Neh 8:1 And all the people gathered themselves together as one man into the street that was before the water gate; and they spake unto Ezra the scribe to bring the book of the law of Moses, which the LORD had commanded to Israel.​

​

Neh 8:2 And Ezra the priest brought the law before the congregation both of men and women, and all that could hear with understanding, upon the first day of the seventh month.​

​

Neh 8:3 And he read therein before the street that was before the water gate from the morning until midday, before the men and the women, and those that could understand; and the ears of all the people were attentive unto the book of the law.​

​

Neh 8:5 And Ezra opened the book in the sight of all the people; (for he was above all the people and when he opened it, all the people stood up:​

​

Neh 8:8 So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading.​

​

Neh 8:9 And Nehemiah, which is the Tirshatha, and Ezra the priest the scribe, and the Levites that taught the people, said unto all the people, This day is holy unto the LORD your God; mourn not, nor weep. For all the people wept, when they heard the words of the law.​

​

Neh 8:12 And all the people went their way to eat, and to drink, and to send portions, and to make great mirth, because they had understood the words that were declared unto them.​

​

Neh 8:13 And on the second day were gathered together the chief of the fathers of all the people, the priests, and the Levites, unto Ezra the scribe, even to understand the words of the law.​

​

Neh 8:14 And they found written in the law which the LORD had commanded by Moses, that the children of Israel should dwell in booths in the feast of the seventh month:​

​

Neh 8:18 Also day by day, from the first day unto the last day, he read in the book of the law of God. And they kept the feast seven days; and on the eighth day was a solemn assembly, according unto the manner.​

There was no personal interpretation going on. They were simply reading the book of the law to those who could understand, and making it understandable to those who could not understand the language clearly, being a mixed nation.

Notice my question again. "Defining".

I believe you wrote

"...self-defining, as in self-interpreting?"


And as you rightly note in verse 8,

"and (they) caused them to understand the reading."


Also, they "gave the sense".


It doesn't say how they were giving the sense of what was being read, but to me it's obvious that it was something beyond just the characters on the page.


So the characters on the page were not self interpreting for the people in that situation.

 

[Dan_473]

So, let me re-phrase the question.

Do you believe that scripture (God's word), on earth, is preserved of God? If so, in whole or in part? If in part, which part/s?

I believe the scripture is preserved by God here on Earth.


It is preserved "in part" in the same sense that Luke preserves "in part" the quote from Isaiah in Luke 4. The meaning is unchanged, but the words are not exact.


But it's not like you can point to a book or passage and say that it is absolutely preserved, while another passage is not preserved.


It's like if you take a clean sheet of paper and some people touch it. Now it has some smudges on it.


So it is with God's word. Delivered in perfection, it has been handled by humans and now it has smudges on it.

 

[Brandnewday]

Every version has been tampered with because we don't have any of the original scrolls. And in the beginning of the apostles teaching the gospel it was word of mouth. Nothing written down about that for many years.

 

[Dino246]

Every version has been tampered with because we don't have any of the original scrolls. And in the beginning of the apostles teaching the gospel it was word of mouth. Nothing written down about that for many years.

Given this, do you believe that God has preserved His word, or not? If so, do you believe the Bible is the word of God, or not?

 

[Brandnewday]

Given this, do you believe that God has preserved His word, or not? If so, do you believe the Bible is the word of God, or not?

What came first? God or the bible? Did you know that the bible's cover has never since its printing bore the title, God's Words. Only, Holy Bible. And then the hundreds of versions of God's words come afterward. And who's responsible for publishing those versions of God's eternal words?
That's nerve if you ask me. God's words, the new version. Again, and again, and again. But God does not change. Why then are there so many different changes to his words and who is responsible for that?

I believe I can believe in God and not believe in the bible. Even the bible tells me this. I was just telling someone else this. Paul said that unbelievers have no excuse to not believe in God. Because God is everywhere. Here, I looked it up for you.
Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature-have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

We're told to pray to God and God will answer. Why read what we're suppose to believe according to what we're allowed to read so as to then come to believe in that. Is that God? Or is that man and his latest version. This discussion and the claim about that NIV version should make you think.

We pray to God and God answers. God is everywhere we look because everything is made by God and can only be created to be seen from that source. Why read what some version of God's message tells you to believe? Especially when it can be really wrong and tampered with, as this discussion claims.
Why not pray to God and have God lead you himself? He is alive inside every Christian, right? What's he doing there? Taking a nap? Or does he speak to you, lead you in the way you should go? Why do you need someone else and their latest version built from what the first writers wanted to make the world believe and behave like?

The apostles brought the gospel to people by word of mouth. They didn't have a bible. There wasn't one for many hundreds of years after they were all dead. And they were all illiterate, those that were with Jesus when he was here. Except maybe Matthew because he was a tax collector. And John, who wrote Revelation. But the rest were illiterate. And the gospel books aren't written by the apostles anyway. They're anonymous writings.

Put it this way. Jesus is suppose to be the prince of peace as Messiah. One of the reasons the Jews don't believe Jesus was their Messiah is because their writings told them that when Messiah arrived he would bring world peace.
There has never been world peace since Jesus. In fact, there have been holy wars dedicated to the name of God. But no peace.

Hell, even on this site you all aren't at peace. I go through here and read the way you all talk to each other and the things you say, and the names you call each other. And you're all doing this while you're defending Jesus teachings to one another. Only how you do it makes it not anything but offending Jesus by offending one another.

You should see yourselves and how it looks to a new person here. ""God is love!"" How you all talk to each other? Can't tell.

 

[Dan_473]

Umm, I have already given you one biblical evidence about translation and you want more

I believe you gave evidence regarding a phrase in the scriptures.


My understanding is that the subject at hand is the translation of the entire scriptures.

 

[Dan_473]

Maybe it 's time for me to be taught about "preserved in heaven" and "settled in heaven". are you saying they are the same?

Expound more please...

Thank you

Sure!


My understanding of the English of around 1600 is that the word

settled

as it is used here is basically a synonym for the word

preserved.

 

[Dan_473]

To those who dislike and felt indifferently, why?

Thanks

Hi fredoheaven,


Myself, I'm not big on watching videos to gain information.


Could you take what the video says and put it in your own words? Or summarize it?

 

[fredoheaven]

Simple: if the mathematical "miracles" aren't present in the original-language texts, they are irrelevant. Any that are present in the original languages are there by God's design and the KJV just happens to preserve them, meaning it's nothing special.

Umm, alright, that's something to do with the original language only and the typical irrelevance of translations. Well, like it or not, that mathematical formula happens by God design in the KJV.

 

[Dan_473]

You should see yourselves and how it looks to a new person here. ""God is love!"" How you all talk to each other? Can't tell.

Hi Brandnewday,

I think what you're seeing there is just the nature of the internet. Granted, there's a lot of impoliteness on here.

But compared to my experience on atheist forums discussing religious topics, this is basically a tea party!

 

[fredoheaven]

As I have responded to your inquiry, perhaps you could explain why you put an "Old" icon on my post #348?

"if you have not already, you will find that most KJV-only proponents treat the the KJV as the standard to which all others should be compared. That is why you see so many posts here claiming that the NIV "removes" or "changes" this verse or that word. It's circular reasoning (also very common among KJV-o's) and has absolutely no validity. "

IMO, that's sound too old to be true. Omissions or alterations on most "modern" English bibles are prevalent. Not to rehash of the manuscript evidence found in the numerous post of the other guy. Could you deal some of those post with presented evidence?

Thank you.