77 Changed Doctrines in Modern Bibles

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
No need to rush through it. I wrote a lot, and there is a lot that you may need to compare at Biblehub, Biblegateway for yourself (Seeing I did not put the verse changes side by side). Comparing the differences and seeing if they truly are unique enough to affect people's faith is the point I am trying to make. In my experience, I have run into those who favor Modern Bibles, and they believe something false because of the Modern Bible rendering.


....

@Dino246

Seeing that we are not Vulcans, I really cannot mind-meld with you to share my experiences on this.
Meaning, I cannot show you that others who favor Modern Bibles believe false things as a result of them fully, where you would understand. This must come from your own study and investigation.


....
 
One could make the conclusion that the KJV is defended based on familiarity. But it is actually a biblical concept that God's Word is perfect, and that it will last for all generations. There is no Bible verse or passages defending the Originals Onlyism position, whereby we have corrupted texts only today, so it is left up to us to try and be our own scholars or to hold to scholars who lie or make things up. Also, the whole Modern Bible movement is based on deception. Its very origins are rooted in deception, with the English Revised Version spearheaded by Westcott and Hort. It was supposed to be just a KJV update, but in reality, it was also based on favoring Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. There are changed doctrines when you compare the KJV vs. Modern Bibles. I strived not to highlight changes that my fellow KJV-only brethren would point out that are extremely minor in my viewpoint. For example, Luke 4:4 (while a corruption in my view) is not a point I would bring up because it does not affect doctrine since the other witnesses in Scripture are there giving us that same truth.


....

Thanks Bible Highlighter. I agree with you that God's Word is perfect and will last for all generations. Thanks for your comments.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DeanM
I wonder how old the TR actually is? Some seem to think Erasmus produced it out of thin air.
 
Here’s the rub: I have seen exactly the same thing with people who only use the KJV.

The problem is that the KJV itself is not teaching anything false that would warrant them to believe that way.
This is not the case with the Modern Bibles, though. Modern Bibles actually state heretical things that lead others to believe those false things. For example, Modern Bibles teach you to marry your rapist. This not only contradicts Scripture itself, but basic morality, as well. I mention this in my OT section. Just look at the Table of Contents. It is Reason #66 page 43. There is a sub-article explaining it even more in-depth. Atheists love to bring up this point in how the Bible teaches to marry your rapist and yet this is the Modern Bible blunder that they are latching onto. These kinds of problems are just the tip of the iceberg when encountering people believing false things because of the Modern Bibles.


....
 
Thanks Bible Highlighter. I agree with you that God's Word is perfect and will last for all generations. Thanks for your comments.

Your welcome. Some say it is just the message that is preserved perfectly and not God's actual literal words, though.
However, Jesus said not one jot or tittle shall pass away from the Law (i.e., the law and the prophets) till all be fulfilled.
This means Jesus cares about even the most smallest details of His Word. Jots and tittles are marks that make up the Hebrew letter. They are like the crossing of a "t" and the dotting of an "i." So, if Jesus cared about the small details of His Word then, it would make sense that God's character and attitude towards His own Word would not change.

While the Old Law has been fulfilled (the 613), the prophetic books (i.e., the prophets of the law and the prophets) has yet to be fulfilled still because there are still end-times prophecies that still have yet to happen.


....
 
  • Like
Reactions: DeanM
I wonder how old the TR actually is? Some seem to think Erasmus produced it out of thin air.

I think the dating is speculative at best.
We lost many Greek MSS even since Erasmus' time.
While there are surviving Greek MSS that Erasmus used, all of what he had we no longer have.

Yeah, Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza simply collated the Greek manuscripts that were part of the Byzantine church tradition. Erasmus didn’t even include the Comma Johanneum at first, it wasn’t added until he later found Greek manuscript support for it.

Critical Text advocates just make up stories about Erasmus in order to play cover and its not really based on anything factual.
They like to create anecdotes about Erasmus that are simply not true to try and discredit our trust that God preserved His Word.

Even the KJV translators looked at Greek MSS, although they primarily looked to the Beza 1598 Greek edtion as their primary source text. The KJV differs from the Beza 1598 in about 20 or so places (i.e., translatable differences that are actually a change in meaning).


....
 
  • Like
Reactions: DeanM
The problem is that the KJV itself is not teaching anything false that would warrant them to believe that way.
This is not the case with the Modern Bibles, though.
Heretical versions such as the NWT aside, yes, it is.

Why do you think so many pseudo-Christian cults use the KJV?
 
Yeah, Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza simply collated the Greek manuscripts that were part of the Byzantine church tradition.
"Simply collated"? That's a gross simplification. He was doing what is now called "textual criticism".

Erasmus didn’t even include the Comma Johanneum at first, it wasn’t added until he later found Greek manuscript support for it.
He didn't find anything of the sort; he was given "Codex Montfortianus" which he suspected was a fabrication to "prove" the historicity of the Comma.

Critical Text advocates just make up stories about Erasmus in order to play cover and its not really based on anything factual.
Um... like you're doing here? Come on. At least try to cover your hypocrisy better.

Even the KJV translators looked at Greek MSS, although they primarily looked to the Beza 1598 Greek edtion as their primary source text. The KJV differs from the Beza 1598 in about 20 or so places (i.e., translatable differences that are actually a change in meaning).
Actually, their starting point was the Great Bible which drew from Coverdale and Tyndale. The latter's work appears verbatim in some passages. Beza's 1598 edition was in Greek, not in English.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DeanM
@Dino246

Seeing that we are not Vulcans, I really cannot mind-meld with you to share my experiences on this.
Meaning, I cannot show you that others who favor Modern Bibles believe false things as a result of them fully, where you would understand. This must come from your own study and investigation.
I don't need your experiences; I want facts. State clearly and concisely what these people believe and on what passages in which modern translations they base their beliefs. Specifics, not generalities. Otherwise, your arguments are empty wind.
 
So this is the scripture YOU QUOTE here -----IN CONTEXT _____

Here is the thing DavidLamb ------that you need to LEARN ------

IF YOU TAKE OUT THE WORD ___TEXT ___FROM CONTEXT _____YOUR LEFT WITH------- A ___CON ______

THIS is the CONTEXT of PHILIPPIANS 2 ------and nowhere does it say that Jesus gave up His DIVINE PRIVILEGES --------CAUSE it is not Taking about Jesus here ---

It is Talking about----------- US ----HUMANITY___IMITATING CHRIST'S HUMANITY ----

Here is the Scripture in CONTEXT ______NOt -------IN ---------CON

Imitating Christ’s Humility

2 Therefore if you have any encouragement from being united with Christ, if any comfort from his love, if any common sharing in the Spirit, if any tenderness and compassion,

2 then make my joy complete by being like-minded, having the same love, being one in spirit and of one mind.

3 Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit. Rather, in humility value others above yourselves,

4 not looking to your own interests but each of you to the interests of the others.

5 In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:

6 Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;


7 rather, he made himself nothing


Get This ---this is talking -----OUR ---- Relationships -------this is your CONTEXT ---

You cannot separate Verses 5--6--7----if you do --your taking the TEXT ------out of CONTEXT and your left WITH A ___CON ____like you are believing -----

I say to you ---------So go back ---look every Scripture you have Quoted as being changed in the Modern Day Bibles and READ THE full CONTEXT -------STOP TAKING THE --------TEXT OF OF ______CONTEXT


ALERT !!!!!!!!!!!

YOUR THE ONE BEING -----CONNED ----by BELIEVING ------CONS who are trying to discredit GOD"S WORD

and that comes from GUESS WHO ------

View attachment 280679
Sorry, but I don't understand what you mean. I was quoting the verse from the NKJV. You claim I was taking the verse out of context, but that was only because it was the verse you quoted. Here are verses 5-8 from the NKJV:

“5 Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, 7 but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, [and] coming in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to [the point of] death, even the death of the cross.” (Php 2:5-8 NKJV)

Where does the NKJV say that Jesus gave up His divine privileges?

(Edited to add) Sorry, I have just seen your post apologising for replying to the wrong person's message.
 
Thanks DavidLamb, for your comments. I was looking at the first verse of the Bible in KJV and I noticed that it is different in the NKJV:

"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. " KJV

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. " NKJV

Since the very first verse is different in the NKJV, it made me leery of it. I have not compared beyond that, though, and the original texts in Hebrew and so forth are (of course) really the thing to go on when searching meaning - not that I know much Hebrew, or Aramaic, or Greek, but there are concordances to look up words, as we all know. Still, I use the KJV, and find that, to my mind, trying to make scripture more relatable to easy vernacular can change ideas based on translators' assumptions about meaning. Hollywood likes the NKJV, since the movie 'The Book of Eli' uses it. I am sticking with the KJV and looking up words in a concordance if it seems necessary.
I find that the same Hebrew word is translated "heaven" and "heavens" even in different places in the KJV. Here are an exampke of each from the KJV:

Ge 7:19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.

Ge 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,

Thanks for your gracious post.
 
Heretical versions such as the NWT aside, yes, it is.

Why do you think so many pseudo-Christian cults use the KJV?

Cults drives cars. So that means cars are bad, right? Again, you are missing the point. The KJV itself does not teach false doctrines itself but the Modern Bibles do.


...
 
Cults drives cars. So that means cars are bad, right? Again, you are missing the point. The KJV itself does not teach false doctrines itself but the Modern Bibles do.


...
Please stop tarring all modern versions with the same brush. There may well be modern translations which are really mistranslations, but that doesn't mean that all are. I suggest it would be far more accurate to say, "Some modern bibles teach false doctrines."
 
I don't need your experiences; I want facts. State clearly and concisely what these people believe and on what passages in which modern translations they base their beliefs. Specifics, not generalities. Otherwise, your arguments are empty wind.

For many years the Congregational churches used the King James Bible, which rendered Philippians 2:7 as “made himself of no reputation.” That wording reflected the long-held, orthodox belief that Christ humbled Himself without ceasing to be fully God. It emphasized His humility and willingness to take on the form of a servant, not that He emptied Himself of divine power or attributes. However, when modern translations such as the Revised Version (1885) and the American Standard Version (1901) began to replace the KJV in seminaries and pulpits, they translated the same verse much differently as “emptied Himself.” This single change of wording, though seemingly small, had enormous theological influence. It came at a time when liberal Protestant thought and German theology were spreading in American seminaries, including those connected to the Congregational churches. The new phrase “emptied Himself” appeared to support the modern kenosis theory, the idea that Christ laid aside or limited certain divine qualities while on earth.

As these modern translations gained popularity, many ministers and teachers within the Congregational tradition gradually began adopting or sympathizing with this newer interpretation. The shift was not sudden, nor was it officially declared; it developed over time as the language of the new Bibles aligned with the liberal theological trends of that era. In short, when the Congregational churches held to the KJV, they held to the traditional doctrine of Christ’s full divinity during His incarnation. But when they exchanged the KJV for the ASV and RSV, their theology began to change with it. The rendering “emptied Himself” became the key phrase that made kenosis theology not only thinkable but believable in those circles.

I have ran into Christians who believed false things because of what was stated in a Modern Bible.
One guy told me Jesus sinned and he quoted a Modern Bible.
It is also no secret that Unitarian groups generally dismiss 1 John 5:7.

Verses in Which Modern Bibles Weaken the Authority of Scripture:
  1. Psalms 96:13 — “truth” changed to “faithfulness.”
  2. Psalms 12:6–7 — preservation of God’s words changed to preservation of His people.
  3. Psalms 138:2 — “magnified Thy Word above all Thy name” changed to “exalted Your solemn decree.”
  4. Psalms 119:140 — “word” changed to “promises.”
  5. 2 Corinthians 2:17 — “corrupt the word of God” changed to “peddle the word of God.”
  6. Romans 10:17 — “word of God” changed to “message about Christ.”
  7. 1 Peter 1:23 — “incorruptible” replaced with other words (such as “imperishable”), obscuring the truth that God’s Word cannot be corrupted.
  8. 1 Peter 2:2 — removes “of the word,” leaving only “milk,” disconnecting spiritual growth from the Word of God.
  9. Proverbs 22:21 — “certainty of the words of truth” changed to “reliable words.”
  10. Isaiah 28:10 — “precept upon precept” changed to “order on order.”
  11. John 5:39 — “Search the scriptures” (command) changed to “You search the Scriptures” (statement), making it sound like Jesus was criticizing the Jews for studying the Scriptures.
These eleven changes reveal a troubling pattern. Many Christians today who have been taught to hold a lower view of Scripture, believing that the Bible is not perfect and contains errors, are reading from Bibles that reflect that very mindset. Modern versions not only weaken doctrines but also downgrade the noble characteristics and divine power of Scripture itself. They subtly diminish its purity, authority, and eternal preservation, leading believers to view the Word of God as merely inspired in part rather than perfect in whole. There are Christians that I and other TR/KJV defenders have encountered who say we take the Bible too seriously, and yet these same people do not have any problem with the Modern Bibles.


...
 
Please stop tarring all modern versions with the same brush. There may well be modern translations which are really mistranslations, but that doesn't mean that all are. I suggest it would be far more accurate to say, "Some modern bibles teach false doctrines."

The ESV, and NASB and many other so-called respected Modern Bibles all teach false doctrines.
I show this in the PDF. All you have to do is do a word search on the PDF to find them.


....
 
He didn't find anything of the sort; he was given "Codex Montfortianus" which he suspected was a fabrication to "prove" the historicity of the Comma.
This is not the case.
  • There is Different Wording in Erasmus’s Annotations
    Nick Sayers looked at the Greek, and he points out in a video out that Erasmus quotes the Greek wording of “Codex Britannicus” in his Annotations, and that this text does not match what is found in Codex Montfortianus.
  • Historical Testimony from Thomas Burgess
    Nick also cites 19th-century Bishop Thomas Burgess, who also rejected the identification of Montfortianus with Erasmus’s Britannicus and claimed the real Britannicus is a lost Greek manuscript.


....
 
Please stop tarring all modern versions with the same brush. There may well be modern translations which are really mistranslations, but that doesn't mean that all are. I suggest it would be far more accurate to say, "Some modern bibles teach false doctrines."

He knows that.
 
For many years the Congregational churches used the King James Bible, which rendered Philippians 2:7 as “made himself of no reputation.” That wording reflected the long-held, orthodox belief that Christ humbled Himself without ceasing to be fully God. It emphasized His humility and willingness to take on the form of a servant, not that He emptied Himself of divine power or attributes. However, when modern translations such as the Revised Version (1885) and the American Standard Version (1901) began to replace the KJV in seminaries and pulpits, they translated the same verse much differently as “emptied Himself.” This single change of wording, though seemingly small, had enormous theological influence. It came at a time when liberal Protestant thought and German theology were spreading in American seminaries, including those connected to the Congregational churches. The new phrase “emptied Himself” appeared to support the modern kenosis theory, the idea that Christ laid aside or limited certain divine qualities while on earth.

As these modern translations gained popularity, many ministers and teachers within the Congregational tradition gradually began adopting or sympathizing with this newer interpretation. The shift was not sudden, nor was it officially declared; it developed over time as the language of the new Bibles aligned with the liberal theological trends of that era. In short, when the Congregational churches held to the KJV, they held to the traditional doctrine of Christ’s full divinity during His incarnation. But when they exchanged the KJV for the ASV and RSV, their theology began to change with it. The rendering “emptied Himself” became the key phrase that made kenosis theology not only thinkable but believable in those circles.

I have ran into Christians who believed false things because of what was stated in a Modern Bible.
One guy told me Jesus sinned and he quoted a Modern Bible.
It is also no secret that Unitarian groups generally dismiss 1 John 5:7.

Verses in Which Modern Bibles Weaken the Authority of Scripture:
  1. Psalms 96:13 — “truth” changed to “faithfulness.”
  2. Psalms 12:6–7 — preservation of God’s words changed to preservation of His people.
  3. Psalms 138:2 — “magnified Thy Word above all Thy name” changed to “exalted Your solemn decree.”
  4. Psalms 119:140 — “word” changed to “promises.”
  5. 2 Corinthians 2:17 — “corrupt the word of God” changed to “peddle the word of God.”
  6. Romans 10:17 — “word of God” changed to “message about Christ.”
  7. 1 Peter 1:23 — “incorruptible” replaced with other words (such as “imperishable”), obscuring the truth that God’s Word cannot be corrupted.
  8. 1 Peter 2:2 — removes “of the word,” leaving only “milk,” disconnecting spiritual growth from the Word of God.
  9. Proverbs 22:21 — “certainty of the words of truth” changed to “reliable words.”
  10. Isaiah 28:10 — “precept upon precept” changed to “order on order.”
  11. John 5:39 — “Search the scriptures” (command) changed to “You search the Scriptures” (statement), making it sound like Jesus was criticizing the Jews for studying the Scriptures.
These eleven changes reveal a troubling pattern. Many Christians today who have been taught to hold a lower view of Scripture, believing that the Bible is not perfect and contains errors, are reading from Bibles that reflect that very mindset. Modern versions not only weaken doctrines but also downgrade the noble characteristics and divine power of Scripture itself. They subtly diminish its purity, authority, and eternal preservation, leading believers to view the Word of God as merely inspired in part rather than perfect in whole. There are Christians that I and other TR/KJV defenders have encountered who say we take the Bible too seriously, and yet these same people do not have any problem with the Modern Bibles.
WHICH versions contain the "changed" wording in each case? Without specifics, your arguments are empty wind. I've told you this repeatedly and you keep posting information without citation, which amounts to exactly nothing.

Further, merely assuming the KJV is the best rendition of the original-language text in every case is fundamentally flawed; you must demonstrate with external evidence that the KJV is best. All you are bringing to light is difference which proves nothing at all.

Why is it that you think you have a valid and sound argument when you keep overlooking these basic concepts of logical argumentation?
 
  • Like
Reactions: DavidLamb