I am confused. In your commentary on Jude you state that Jude was the brother of James. My NASV says that Jude was the "son" of James. Please can you help me understand where I misunderstood this verse?
Speaking of Luke 23:34 where Jesus was on the cross and said "Father forgive them for they know not what they do. Why is there a footnote in the NIV Bible that says Some manuscripts do not have this sentence?
The KJV is not accurate and many Study Bibles correct this errors in the marginal notes with such statements as "this is not in the best or most trustworthy manuscripts" or "this should read . . .", etc. Why can't you be opened minded about this?
The Textus Receptus reflects the Majority or Western text which exists in the body of over 6000 extant Greek manuscripts. The NIV is based on the Westcott Hort texts which number a grand total of two or three manuscripts, which although are older, show clear signs of being corrupted.
By the way, I too while in Bible college was subjected to the same pressure and arguments for the NIV and other modern translation as you are. I to a degree succumbed and started using the NIV on a limited basis. I, however, did not feel comfortable and began to investigate the various English versions for myself. As the result of my studies I found many errors, omissions, poor translating biased toward liberalism and etc. I abandoned its use and became a firm user of the KJV based on the superior way it consistently translates Greek into English. Yes, the NIV does translate into modern English some of the antiquated KJV words, but that does not make it a good translation. What makes a translation good is that it accurately reflects word for word in English the original language. The supposed problems with antiquated words can be easily handled and explained to oneself or his hearers with a little study using the many reference dictionaries and Bible helps available. There is nothing wrong with study!
I would suggest that you do a little comparison for yourself which can easily show if the NIV is a better translation or not. I have a "NIV test" with has twenty five questions listed. You can take the NIV and one by one answer the questions on the test. The questions asked are mostly "fill in the blank" questions taken directly from a Bible passage. Click here to a copy of the test After you take this simple open book test write me and let me know how you did? Hope this helps. David Cloud's web site address is: Way of Life KJV Defense Library From there you can find many sites that defend the KJV in a scholarly and truthful way.
I spend seven years of my life in formal training (ThB and MBS) and which included studies of the all the Greek text families, three courses in versions and translations of both the OT and NT which included all the histories and properties of these versions. I have two years of studying Koine Greek (four semesters). I have spent another two and a half years in personal study of the study concentrating on this issue. I have all the modern translations, all the Greek texts and two Hebrew texts, plus at least fifteen language reference works (lexicons , etc), plus I have read many of the major works written on the subject and released in the past 125 years, with a good number of them in my library.
I have studied the matter for many years in an honest and scholarly way. I have been honest and unbiased enough to admit that some of the results of my studies differ from the normal KJV defense because I found they are not true or cannot be substantiated and I have laboriously made sure my research findings were accurate. I know the very few minor short comings of the KJV and where it could be improved. I also know that there are "very major" short comings and blatant errors of the modern translations also because I have spent the time and effort to research them. The differences between the KJV and the modern versions is vast and the KJV is absolutely the most accurate English translation we have and can be completely trusted. You however cannot trust the modern translations which are based on the Critical or Westcott-Hort text that is often in error, poorly translated and based on less that six manuscripts which are all known to be corrupted.
I feel like the experience I had years ago with my little sister Wanda (now with the Lord) who was about 2 years old. She put her hands over her eyes and told me I could not see her. I replied, yes I could see her, but nothing I said made any difference....she was certain I could not see her because she could not see me....that is the nature of a child who is two and half years old and immature. Was I to accept that I could not see her, when I was looking at her....just because she could not see me? I think the answer is obvious.
Those who put such statements in the margins such as "the best translations should read...." or "this is better translated ........" are those who have accepted the claims of the higher critics. I have probably read every one of these statements at one time or another and checked many of the out for myself. I found that most of these "scholars" copied their notes from other liberal commentators and I have often found the sources where that got their material. It was clear they did not know what they were talking about but merely parroting what someone else said. My findings shows the benefit checking sources and of having a good library where do the research.
So when you tell me to be open minded. I suppose you mean I am to ignore all the evidence, years of research and scholarly training and accept what some commentator wrote who conclusions are based in his liberal bias or ignorance.
I think I am wasting my time, but I will show you classic example.
Look at the Ryrie Study Bible - Charles Ryrie - marginal note on Mark 16:9-20
HOWEVER WHAT ARE THE PROVABLE DEMONSTRATABLE FACTS ABOUT THIS PASSAGE?:
These verses were left out of the manuscripts Aleph, B, 2386(4th Century), by Clement, Origin and Jerome. The writings of these men shows that they had many heretical beliefs and cannot be fully trusted.However, verse 9-20 of Mark's Gospel were included in most other manuscripts (mss) including A, C, D, W, and the older AD 170 Diatessaron, Justin Martyr (Martredin 156 AD), Irenaseus (140_203 AD), and over 2000 other mss that contain the Gospel of Mark. Please note the dates of these mss that they are mostly older that Aleph and B.
Does the evidence show that scholar Charles Ryrie is correct or in error?
Is there evidence to support his statements or is he in gross error and making false conclusions not based in fact.
Are the Aleph and B the "the most trustworthy" mss (manuscripts) or they even "trustworthy" at all?
What is the evidence that Mark 16:9-20, not part of the "genuine" NT text?
1. We are told that Aleph and B are the older mss and therefore being closer to the originals must be more accurate, RIGHT? WRONG! Mark 16:9-20 is found in older mss as noted above. Therefore the "older is better" argument is not accurate.
2. If there are older mss with these verses then what is the basis for Ryrie saying the are not found in the most trustworthy mss? Answer: There is NONE and his statement is false.
3. On what basis does Ryrie conclude that the Aleph and B, are the "most trustworthy"?The actual evidence is that Alpeh and B are corrupted texts containing omissions, erasures, and clear signs of tampering. A clearly corrupted mss such as these cannot be considered more trustworthy just because they are older than most of the extant (existing) mss. A mss can be corrupted at any age and age does not prove it is authentic. What proves its authenticity is the accuracy of its text.
4.If older mss have these verses, and the Aleph and B don't....what happened and why were they admitted? That's simple.....for some reason somebody took them out of these mss.
5. Is there any doctrinal errors in Mark 16:9-20? Answer: NONE.
6. If Aleph and B are the "most trustworthy" mss should they not agree with each other most of the time? Yes, they should however they disagree with each other over 3000 times! This presents quite a dilemma for that who would leave these verses in Mark out based on the these two mss. Their problem is this: If they disagree with each other 3000 times which of the two mss should we accept as correct?! Answer: The question answers its self. Neither! The evidence is they cannot be trusted."
7. Is Bible scholar Charles Ryrie's statement correct? The evidence is NO! His statement as stated earlier comes from his acceptance of the false tenants of higher criticism which denies the inspiration and preservation of the Word of God. Interestingly, in other places in his study Bible Ryrie upholds these truths. It is hard to understand why Ryrie is tampering with the very Word of God and bringing his scholarship into question with this unfounded marginal statements. It seems what Ryrie did was put a "politically correct" statement in the Bible's margin to appease the liberal critics of the Bible based on the weakness possible evidence and he ignored the great weight of evidence that verses 9-20 are how God ended the Gospel.
Conclusion: No one has ever presented any credible evidence that Mark 16:19-20 is not the ending of the Book written under the inspiration of God by Mark and which God has preserved in His word. Those that leave it out do so solely based on their human options based in their liberal bias that denies the inspiration and preservation of the word of God.
These two men based their new version of the Greek New Testament on two ancient manuscripts the Sinaiticus (Aleph), dated 340 AD. and the Codex Vaticanus (B) dated 325-50 AD. Although they claimed their work was done by examining ancient Greek manuscripts actually they produced their Greek text by heavily consulting the published works of other liberal scholars and the corrupted manuscripts as noted above. They proposed the idea that because the Aleph and B manuscripts were the oldest they were the best and most accurate. They rejected any suggestion that even though these mss were ancient, they could have been tampered with. They ignored that they these manuscripts showed little wear for their age which attests the their real value that was placed on them. They were not used because they were clearly suspect of being faulty. Further, they ignored the obvious evidence that both these manuscripts had been tampered with and were in fact corrupted. Aleph and B have gross cases of misspelling, faulty grammar, and omission. Clearly, they are both of very low quality as to the scribal copying. Their actions were certainly not scholarly and showed they were interested were in promoting their bias against the Textus Receptus, and not the scientific facts surrounding these manuscripts or a better Greek text. I think commons sense would tell us that the modern adage of "Garbage in, Garbage out" applies. The men used corrupted manuscripts and a corrupted Greek text. It is amazing that men who claim to be god fearing, defend such a distorted work.
The fact is that these two manuscripts disagree more than thirty four (34) times per chapter in the Gospels alone. In comparing the two manuscripts together they disagree with each other over 3000 times in the gospels alone. In some of the Epistles they disagree even more. These two manuscripts came from Egypt which was a hot bed of heresy during the time these manuscripts were produced and they seemed to have been changed (corrupted) in order to support false doctrine. In other words, someone tampered with God's word and changed portions of it to accommodate their false beliefs the Bible does not support. Westcott and Hort knew this, but refused to let it bother them in their quest to destroy the Textus Receptus and the King James Bible.
Therefore the basis of all modern versions of the English Bible are based on the flawed work of the Westcott-Hort critical text and a Greek text that has obviously been tampered with. The Greek text they used, the Aleph and B do not represent the Original Autographs and therefore should be rejected.
Only the KJV are based on the Textus Receptus which represent the Majority text, which is represented by almost 6000 existing (extant) manuscripts. (The NKJV while claiming to be based on the TR follows the Miniority Text and cannot be trusted) No one asserts that the Majority Greek Text (Western) has been tampered with because there is no evidence of that. There are variances between manuscripts in the Majority Texts, but they are easily seen as scribal mistakes, not any attempt to change or corrupt the word of God. Yet, the opposite is truth of the Eastern Text and there is clear evidence the Minority Greek Text is a flawed text and therefore the modern versions which are based on it is also flawed.
For a good example of how this appears in the modern versions look at the modern versions premier publication the NIV. Go to https://bible-truth.org/NIVtest.html and with an NIV take the 25 word test. You can find the NIV online at http://www.ibs.org/niv/ if you do not have a copy. You take the test and then I think you will see that version as well as all the rest of them have some serious problems.
By the way...take the test with the KJV and you will get a totally different result.
For a comparison of the NASV with the KJV go to http://www.hissheep.org/kjv/a_comparison_of_the_kjv_nasb.html .
The problem is that many pastors have never taken the time to investigate the matter. They have taken someone else's word for it like I did. When I was in a IFB college the head theology professor promoted the NASV and so I thought it was okay...just another translation, but as he implied more accurate. He never proved that...just made the statement. Problem is that one day I came to the conclusion that maybe I shouldn't just take someone else's word and study the matter myself. So for several years that is what I did and I was amazed that so many people, even my fine theology professor, did not really understand the matter or knew the historical facts about the issue. He misled me, because he was misled himself and did not investigate to determine the truth himself. Few Bible colleges really address the issue head on and prepare their men. They choose to avoid the controversy surrounding it today.
The KJV is the most accurate English translation we have and came be completely trusted to represent the Original Autographs...that the writers of Scripture wrote under inspiration of the Holy Spirit. We can know this and prove it because we have thousands of manuscripts over the past 2000 years to compare and make that determination.
So....I will not use a translation that is marked by change, omission, mistranslation being based on a faulty Greek text, complied by two men who literally have no respect for God's word and have no testimony of even being saved. Hort, called the doctrine of the substitutionary atonement of Jesus Christ "immoral!" Their plain statement was they set out to produce a Greek text that opposed the Greek text of the KJV...and they did it and sadly many good people have purchased their flawed Bibles and made the publishers multiple millions of dollars. That is the real heart of the matter....they publish new versions about every year....to generate more income and further confuse unsuspecting people.
The KJV is the best and most accurate English translation and as such should be used in teaching when it is done in English. Clearly, anyone who is honest and studious can research the evidences, as I have extensively done, and correctly understand this matter. In spite of all the myths and disinformation out there....the matter is quite simple. Translating from a corrupt Greek text such as Aleph and B, (and later A, the Chester Bette mss) produces a corrupt English translation. Are you going to defend the Aleph, A and B as accurate and uncorrupted Greek texts?
All modern translations are based on these corrupt Greek manuscripts. These manuscripts, used in the modern translations, do not even agree with each other a most of the time.....and yet you as a Bible teacher suggest that I used a translation from a corrupted and inaccurate Greek text and that it makes a better translation? Well, I don't think so.
Sir, forget all the books you have read from the liberal anti-inspiration unbelievers of the higher criticism persuasion, and study the mss themselves.....as a teacher and student of God's word....go to the source. Isn't that what your professors in school taught you? I suggest that if you do...you might be surprised by what you find and dismayed at what many so called modern "scholars" are writing, supposedly in the name of Christ!
All the Majority text, or Western Greek Texts which number close to 6000 mss have this reading. The only ms that do not have this reading are Papyrus 75, B. D, W. Theta, 38, 435. Each of these papyri have an Eastern origin from Alexandria Egypt which was a hot bed of heresy in the first few centuries when these books were copied. The early scribes in Egypt took many liberties when they copied God's word and numerous times omitted, or changed the text to reflect their opinions or ideas popular in their day. These early "Christian" scribes were offended that Jesus would pray that God forgive the Jews that crucified Him, so in their distorted thinking the left they words out. All of the Eastern text mss are plainly corrupted copies of the Bible and cannot be trusted. Westcott and Hort hated the Textus Receptus or Majority (Western) text and the King James Bible and deliberately inserted their bias into their translation, thus all modern versions, being based on the Westcott-Hort Greek text are also corrupted and do not reflect an accurate or complete translation in English of the true Greek text that God has preserved.
The NIV does include the verse, because it is found in the Aleph and A mss, but the NIV showing its bias, puts an unneeded note in to cast a shadow over the verse. It serves no other purpose than to add confusion. The evidence is that close to 6000 mss have the statement. Only six mss which are known and recognized by textual scholars to be corrupted omitted the words. Further even the two most important Eastern texts has the statement. There is absolutely no reason to for the note to be included and cast a shadow of what clearly and unmistakably the Lord Jesus said on while on the cross.
To show you some of the many problems with the NIV go to https://bible-truth.org/NIVtest.html and with your open NIV take this simple and straight forward test of twenty five questions. Taking the test will reveal an important bit of information about the NIV which you can see for yourself.
The KJV is an accurate and reliable translation of the Greek New Testament and you can trust it as being God's word.
The Greek text literally reads . . . kai ioudaV iakwbou "kai (and) ioudaV (Jude) iakwbou (James) " or "Jude of James" (the "of" is understood being based on the grammatical ending of the Greek words). The King James Version of the New Testament correctly translates phrase "Jude, the brother of James".
The NAS and all modern translated incorrectly translate the verse "Jude, the son of James." There is no grammatical or analogical reason to insert "the son of." The Greek text of Acts 1:13 says Jude of James, as I stated which means that Jude (Judas) was connected to James. Jude 1 states that Jude was the brother of James and thus the KJV accurately adds the italicized "the brother of" to identify who this Jude (or Judus) was. The use of italics lets the reader knows the words are not in the original Greek or Hebrew text, but are added for clarity.
This is but one of the 100's of reasons I do not use any modern English version. They change the text and incorrectly translate the Greek text. The Majority or Western Greek text reads as the KJV states. This Greek text is represented by close to 6000 extant manuscripts.
It is interesting that the NIV AND THE NASV puts a note in the margins and that says, "or brother." Also all modern translation are based on the corrupt Greek Eastern or Minority text of Westcott-Hort and even in their polluted text it reads literally "Jude of James." The Minority text used to translate modern version are based on three or four Greek manuscripts.
I have a 'test' on my web site for check out the NIV (New International Version) which also works for the NASV. It shows some serious problems with the modern translations. ( https://bible-truth.org/NIVtest.html ) The KJV is the best and accurate literal translation of the Bible.
You wrote and basically said you were confused because your NAS contradicts itself saying brother in Jude 1 and son in Acts 1:13. That ought to rings some bells as to the creditability of the modern versions. With the KJV there is no confusion as it is an accurate translation.
Some churches and preachers really criticize me for taking a stand on using the KJV. Now you know why I refuse to use the modern translations?
No one accepted them as being the inspired word of God and they were never considered part of the canon. The were called the "Apocrypha" referred as "false, spurious, bad, or heretical" because they were not part of the canon and not part of the Bible. They were soon removed from subsequent printings because they are not inspired of God and the printers did not want by including them, to send the wrong message or imply by association they were inspired. When they were included they were placed in a separate section to keep them from being confused as part of the sixty six books of the Bible. Not only do they contain gross doctrinal errors they are not historically accurate in many cases as well.
In 1546 the Roman Catholic council of Trent declared them to be scripture. The reason was clear. They had no scriptural authority for their doctrine of Purgatory and other unbiblical beliefs. Their only source was the spurious Apocryphal books so they canonized them under the pressures caused by the Reformation. No other church accepted them as Scripture. The contents of the books themselves which contradict the teaching of the sixty six books of the canon proved them to be spurious and not inspired of God. God could not contradict Himself in inspiring these books which contain gross doctrinal errors.
However, your friend has been misled into accepting a false premise that the KJV cannot be trusted because the first printing contained these books. He clearly does not know the history of these spurious books or of the KJV. It is in truth a foolish argument against the KJV. The sixty six books of the canon, which make up our Old and New Testament stand alone as being inspired based on what they contain. The same applies to the Apocryphal books. The many doctrinal errors of the Apocryphal books shows them to be spurious and not inspired of God. Evidence of their not being considered as scripture is the Sixth Article of the Church of England, who commissioned the KJV, that said referring to the Apocryphal books, "the other books the church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners," though not to establish doctrine.
I have an article on my web site at https://bible-truth.org/Apocrypha.html titled "The Apocryphal Books - Are they lost books of the Bible?" This explains in some detail why no Bible believing church or Christians accept the Apocryphal books as inspired of God.
"The textual base for the New Testament [NT] is the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece, 27th edition, and the United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament, 4th corrected edition. The text for the Old Testament [OT] is the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, 5th edition." (http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Holman-Christian-Standard-Bible-HCSB/ )
It is not then based on the TR and the Majority text, but on the corrupt mss of Alpeh, A, B and a handful of other Eastern mss, which are clearly corrupted. I would think that if someone did a careful comparison the same problems as with the NIV, etc would be present. If you want a accurate and trustworthy text...the KJV is still the translation to use.