>Why would God “Inspired” a humanist Catholic to write the TR

One doesn’t ‘write’ a biblical manuscript, one edits a manuscript (and there is a further difference between an edited manuscript and a *constructed* manuscript). Erasmus lived prior to the Reformation (he was an old man when Luther took a hammer to that church door). A Romanist can see the light (as the first generation reformers themselves did) Learn history. On the other hand the Romanist provenance and use of the corrupt manuscripts is explicit and can be seen in the central strategy of Roman Beast counter-Reformation activity itself. History exposes Critical Text propaganda, this is why they don’t want you knowing history.

You really have no excuse. Christians have disabused you guys over and over of your Critical Text notions and propaganda. That you still cling to the devil’s line shows that what is hindering you from accepting the truth is beyond anything we Christians can do to help you. You need regeneration that can only come from the Word and the Spirit. Ask God for it. Humbly.
Amen! Not surprised you are banned! This is only a foretaste of what is to come when one stands up for the pure Word of God! So true man in general in these last dark and dangerous days does not let God speak to him, but instead chooses what he would like to be said to him. They can just take their choice, which one suits? One day these people will get a shock when they stand before a thrice Holy God and give an account for blaspheming His Holy Word, and believing what man has said in the place of what God has said. These things as you said can only be spiritually discerned, so as these people have made up their minds, it is a waste of time unless they experience the regeneration of the Spirit of God, and come into the fellowship of His Son! We have been warned that there would be scoffers in the last days, men of corrupt minds, having a form of godliness, but denying the power therof, from such turn away! God will reward you for standing up for His Truth in these wicked days in which we live. If the Word of God cannot touch their conscience, then nothing you or I will have any affect, so best to leave them to their own devices. So sad the consequence for these blind leaders of the blind, but we are warned in Scripture that the last days would be marked by apostasy, prior to the Lord’s coming, so “look up, as your redemption draweth nigh.”

I know there are great translations of the Bible and those that are not so great. I also know the Alexandrian family of texts could have a taint of Gnosticism but that is why they are no longer the version favored by modern Bible translators. When she criticizes the New King James and all the modern versions she is often criticizing a version based on the same Textus Receptus as the King James but even the King James translators looked at other families of manuscripts while favoring the Textus Receptus. Translators will use what is available to help them translate the words correct. There really was only a small window of time when the Alexandrian family texts were more favored than the Textus Receptus and they were favored because they were older manuscripts believed to be closer to the original not because worlves in sheep’s clothing were trying to corrupt the Bible. You act if these translations are done by one person and there is no peer review. That is not the case for the best translations. Scholars are still learning about the texts and the proper translations of ancient words so no translation of the Bible is inerrant and it is why they all word their translations somewhat differently but in spite of the word differences the passage almost always conveys the same meaning. No matter which texts were favored in the popular translations there is no essential doctrine of the faith corrupted. Riplinger really strains and gnats and swallows camels in her criticisms.

The reason people of the world reject what the Bible teaches and have become like Sodom and Gomorrah is not because of the modern translations and the translators it is because people reject God and love to sin. They love the world. Many people do not follow the teachings of the King James translation that they were taught either.

I think you know too little about your Bible and the “great biblical scholars” who are often worlves in sheep’s clothing. Maybe you should look at the fruits of their leadership – if you don’t recognize Sodom and Gomorrah, then maybe you’re blind as they are.

If you examine the distinctions in the Greek mss evidence, the taint of Gnosticism is evident to anyone with even modest discernment.

Anyway, thanks for your input to this topic.

I know that the KJV was not inspired, but I do believe that The Holy Spirit was the guide of the KJV translators. I reject the nonsense that Peter Ruckman says the English corrects the Greek, as though God would make mistakes with a language that He created! What nonsense! (i’m being kind)

I do not and never have followed the writings of one man or source. I will never place any man on a pedestal that is reserved for God and God only. No matter how much I may respect someone, if they are wrong, they are wrong! period. I hold no man in high admiration. I check all sources, and have read quite a few books on this matter. Real books, the ones you have to actually hold in your hands and turn the pages…lol…unlike e-books.

However, I will say that I reject modern bible versions for many reasons which I will not go into here on your blog for fear of causing any problems. I wasn’t going to post my last statement for that reason, but I did anyway…mia culpa…my bad…lol

But again, thank you for a civilized reply that is so rare these days…thank you brother

The main problem I have with the KJV is that we do not use all the same words or speak that way anymore. Over five hundred words have changed their meaning since that version was written. That is part of the reason why I prefer to read the NKJV. However, when searching the scriptures on the Internet I use the KJV because it is free and I also have access to Strong’s (which is not perfect either).

I am not going to comment on most of what you said because if you are wrong that should come from someone that is actually a text scholar. However, I would be shocked if the NKJV said “not found in the best mss” and was referring to the Sinaiticus or Vaticanus mss. I do know that you do not get the truth by just listening to any one side of an argument. I do agree that the NIV is not the best version to use for the reasons I already mentioned in a previous comment.

By the way Frank, the whole world does not speak English, never has and never will, but the KJV was the major translation for reaching the world in the last few centuries since it was much easier to translate the KJV into other languages than it is to translate God’s word from old Hebrew and Greek manuscripts. There is no question that the Holy Spirit was in the creation of the KJV. Nonetheless, the Holy Spirit is still in bible translators today and they do translate from the original manuscripts into other languages today. Perhaps the Holy Spirit wants the Chinese and Spanish translations to be the main translations used today since most of the souls being converted today speak those languages.

The KJV was not directly inspired or there would be no errors in it at all and there is no doubt that there are errors or they would not have made revisions.
Therefore, there is nothing wrong with brackets with footnotes. They often clarify what God said in His word. If you are reading English, the facts are, that you trusted translators to accurately bring you God’s word. That is true with all translations including the KJV.

Now, consider this. When these people defend the King James bible the loudest, with their bad attitudes, adulterous life styles, mean spirited, possibly demon possessed, deliberately deceitful, Satanically prideful, what kind of message is being sent? Is it any wonder that the King James Bible is being maligned because of such cultic and immoral people ‘defending’ the King James Bible, when in fact it is having the opposite effect, which I believe was their intent all along? Not all who say, ” yea, yea, Lord, Lord…” are The Lord’s. We are to walk “…circumspectly, not as fools, but as wise,” (Eph. 5:15) That word, circum (circle) spectly (to inspect) means to walk in a circle around something, inspecting it to see if it’s real or not. We are to do this with everything, and especially when dealing with The Word of God.

Back in 1989, I was a brand new Christian attending a men’s bible study. We came to 1st John, 5:7-8. The only verse that states explicitly the Godhead (trinity). The NIV that the assistant pastor was using differed with the KJV pew bible I was using. The NIV had brackets around the verse with a footnote that stated, “Not found in the best mss.”(mss = manuscripts) I asked the assistant pastor if this verse is true or not? He said, “Well, many scholars think Erasmus or some over zealous scribe inserted that verse.” I had previously ordered some ancient Christian history books. And what do ya know! Guess what I found in “History of The Ancient Christians, by Jean Paul Perin, 1618″ yes, the book was written in 1618. In that book is found a copy of the ancient Christian document known as the “Nobla Lecon” (Noble Lesson). It is dated within the text of the document itself as “Year of our Lord AD 1100″ It was originally written in an old Flemish dialect. In it’s doctrinal defense of the Godhead (Trinity), they quote…yes…1st John 5:7-8! Now…where did they get it? Not from Erasmus. He wouldn’t be born for another 400 years! AD 1100 also predates Peter Waldo’s birth by 40 years, so the Waldensians are not named after Peter Waldo. Wald is Germanic for forest. The document is housed in the British Museum. Now…I had prayed before I ordered those christian history books because I didn’t know if I could trust them. So I asked The Lord to guide me, and all of those 5 Christian history books have been a strong blessing! You cannot get that book anymore, sadly.

Most of the time, when the bible translators say, “not found in the best mss.” what they mean is that they’re not found in Sinaiticus or Vaticanus mss. Those two mss disagree with each other 30,000 times! Both are Roman Catholic creations. Sinaiticus was found by Tischendorf at St. Catherine’s Monastery at the base of Mt. Sinai in Egypt, in waste basket. Study the history of those two manuscripts. Also study about the ‘Letter of Aristeas’ concerning the Septuagint (LXX).

Every single time I ask The Lord Jesus to show me and guide me into all truth, HE DOES! Not all at once, but over time, as The Lord wants us to study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. ” 2 Tim 2:15

I find this strange. The Old Testament was written in Hebrew because it was written to Israel. The New Testament was written in Greek, because it was written to the whole world who spoke Greek at that time. Then, in 1611 came the Authorized Version aka King James, written in English because God knew that the whole world would speak English. All bibles in other languages are acceptable if they are faithful translations of God’s Word.

Revelation 3:8 I know thy works: behold, I have set before thee an open door, and no man can shut it: for thou hast a little strength, AND HAST KEPT MY WORD, and hast not denied my name.

My bible has no brackets with footnotes that cause one to doubt if they have God’s Word or not. Does yours? Some trust translators, others trust The Lord Jesus.

The new translations are not the cause of lukewarm Christians today. Lukewarm Christians only have themselves to blame. When we all appear before Jesus he is not going to give passes based on the translation they used. The question Jesus might ask is “what did you allow the Holy Spirit to do in your life to advance my kingdom?”

The older found texts have not changed one thing of importance in Christianity except confirm that the Bible that we have today has been accurately preserved over time. Well, come to think of it, it did bring one negative thing. It brought about the creation of the KJO sect that is so divisive that they even question the salvation of Christians who do do not read their own idolized translation.

It is dishonest and misinformed to imply that the Christian scholars are trying to give less accurate translations when in the major translations the opposite happens to be true.

The word of God will not be distorted in 20 years but perhaps there will be more translations that are distorted. Nevertheless, Christian scholars will certainly identify them, and warn of using them. That information is not likely to come out of the backwoods of North Carolina or someone who is not a Greek or Hebrew scholar.

Thanks for your informative input. Dr. Norman Geisler is a very brilliant man and I would take what he says seriously. Your correct that some manuscripts have things added that are not found in others even among the same major family. In most cases it seems to be put there for emphasis because it is found elsewhere. It is hard to get human nature out of transcribing.

I do have some concerns with the NIV because I believe the main set of manuscripts they used were from the Alexandrian family. The NIV is more a thought-for-thought translation and they can totally miss the original thought if they did not really understand it . Now they also have designer NIV versions such as the gender neutral version. That is idiotic.

I also would be very concerned about any future version of any translation that is under the management of unbelievers. There are better translations choices out there than the NIV so I would not recommend that anyone buy the NIV today.The Southern Baptists dropped it from their Bible studies but probably mainly because they got tired of paying the royalties.

The KJV was translated from the Greek and Hebrew TR manuscripts and so is the NKJV