Jump to content
The World News Media

Since everyone is jumping on the Textual Criticism bandwagon...


Equivocation
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Member

What do you think of the following below, like the other passage that was discussed, these are said to be spurious or forged, be it added or removed, whatever.

Let's keep this BIBLE SCRIPTURE ONLY, for once this thread needs something neutral instead of the world war III stuff going on, reasons why I asked if ANYONE really changed :D

Simply just quote whatever verse or passage, and show your findings. If you have to interact with someone else, only use Scripture and your findings.

Consider this a Bible based activity.

  • Mark 16:9-20
  • Revelation 1:11
  • 1 Timothy 3:16
  • 1 John 5:7
  • Acts 10:48
  • Acts 16:7
  • Hebrews 1:3
  • Ephesians 3:9
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Views 109
  • Replies 5
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

What do you think of the following below, like the other passage that was discussed, these are said to be spurious or forged, be it added or removed, whatever. Let's keep this BIBLE SCRIPTURE ONLY, for once this thread needs something neutral instead of the world war III stuff going on, reasons why I asked if ANYONE really changed Simply just quote whatever verse or passage, and show your findings. If you have to interact with someone else, only use Scripture and your findings. C

You are definitely following in the Storm Trooper's footsteps. Please do not get like SM, just giving orders to people. It's not about WW3, it's about people being allowed to have their own opinion.  NWT.     Matthew 27 : 4 and saying: “You who would throw down the temple and build it in three days, save yourself! If you are a son of God, come down off the torture stake!” The word TORTURE, is it an addition to this scripture ?   NWT  John 1 : 1  In the beginning was

I stand corrected on the Matthew scripture, which should be Matthew 27 : 40  And yet you have quoted yourself as comparing the KJV with the NWT    If you stick to Bible Scripture Only, surely you have to use a Bible.  If it's a BIBLE based activity, then I've quoted scriptures from the bible.    And i asked questions about words added.  What I didn't do however was to be tricked into using the scriptures sited. 

Posted Images

  • Member

You are definitely following in the Storm Trooper's footsteps. Please do not get like SM, just giving orders to people.

It's not about WW3, it's about people being allowed to have their own opinion. 

NWT.     Matthew 27 : 4

and saying: “You who would throw down the temple and build it in three days, save yourself! If you are a son of God, come down off the torture stake!”

The word TORTURE, is it an addition to this scripture ?  

NWT  John 1 : 1

 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.

The word a, is it an addition to this scripture ? 

I'm not disputing the meaning behind the additions. I'm asking from the BIBLE SCRIPTURE ONLY viewpoint. 

In the JW, Kingdom Interlinear Translations, it shows them to be additions. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

@Patiently waiting for Truth I believe he said to keep it Bible Scripture Only, you constantly bring up JW this and that as if you check under your bed for them in fear of a heart attack. As for the 2 verses mention, be it Strong's or Root, there is no issue, especially the root. Also you got your verses mixed up.

That being said, textual criticism is focused on the verses mentioned, in the realm of criticism, you won't be happy with the answer for the verses you addressed.

FYI

  • Matthew 27:4 - saying, “I have sinned by betraying innocent blood.” They said, “What is that to us? See to it yourself.”

@Equivocation You want these all Textual based or brief? If so, references will be made for anything in and out of the TR.

1 Timothy 3:16 is probably the easiest one, I made a thread about this and I debated a Trinitarian regarding this.

The Roots being

  • He
  • Who
  • He [Was]
  • He [who]
  • Which
  • Christ came as a human
  • Christ is Revealed
  • He was revealed in the flesh
  • etc....

Are in respects to the Concordances.

God or a God in relations to THEOS, is not.

I'll deal with the other ones later.

The Thread, may be hard to read due to images being disabled and the constant change of this forums reveals symbols in the typed text:

As for my comment from the debate:

On 4/27/2018 at 10:10 AM, Space Merchant said:

This is why it is very important to stick to the original source, let alone a bible translation that sticks to said source compared to others that do not.

For the slightly of error can cause many to mislead, and the mislead misleads others.

Any example of this would be 1 Timothy 3:16. This verse has led others, in fact, millions, to believe Jesus is God, however, what such people do not know is what the original manuscripts have stated.

For the sake of this response, I will make a reference to the KJV, despite my disdain for King James and his translators, mainly Francis "shaky hands" Bacon.

  • KJV - 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.

We see in this verse in the KJV, they replaced what was originally there with God whereas a majority of other bibles will simply say He or the Christ came as a Human, something of that nature.

examples:

  • CEV - Here is the great mystery of our religion: Christ came as a human. The Spirit proved that he pleased God, and he was seen by angels. Christ was preached to the nations. People in this world put their faith in him, and he was taken up to glory.
  • NASB - By common confession, great is the mystery of godliness: He who was revealed in the flesh, Was vindicated in the Spirit, Seen by angels, Proclaimed among the nations, Believed on in the world, Taken up in glory.
  • BSB - By common confession, the mystery of godliness is great: He appeared in the flesh, was vindicated by the Spirit, was seen by angels, was proclaimed among the nations, was believed in throughout the world, was taken up in glory.
  • NIV - Without question, this is the great mystery of our faith: Christ was revealed in a human body and vindicated by the Spirit. He was seen by angels and announced to the nations. He was believed in throughout the world and taken to heaven in glory.
  • ESV - Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of godliness: He was manifested in the flesh, vindicated by the Spirit, seen by angels, proclaimed among the nations, believed on in the world, taken up in glory.
  • He who was manifested in the flesh (ASV)
  • Who was manifested in the flesh (NAB)
  • He was manifested in the flesh (RSV)
  • He was revealed in flesh (NRSV)
  • Which was manifested in the flesh (Douey-Rheims)
  • He was revealed in the flesh (NET)
  • Who was manifested in the flesh (NAB)

In the Bible of the Jehovah's Witnesses, they to stuck to the original source, as did the others mentioned above, giving references to said verse also.

NWT - Indeed, the sacred secret of this godly devotion is admittedly great: ‘He was made manifest in flesh, was declared righteous in spirit, appeared to angels, was preached about among nations, was believed upon in the world, was received up in glory.’

So it is clear that the following in regards to added words in scripture results in such things like this:

The Trinitarian Claim -  Trinitarians claim this verse identifies Jesus as "God" because it says "God was manifested in the flesh."

The Claim vs. The Facts - The manuscript evidence, and the immediate context, shows the KJV reading was not authored by Paul.

Conclusion  (quote) - So when we review all the evidence the solution is plain to see. The historical evidence indicates the word "God" was not there before the late fourth century at the earliest. The manuscript evidence indicates the word "God" was not in the original text. The grammar and the immediate context also indicate the KJV reading is not authentic. Christ is the mystery in question which is why the passage should read, "great is the mystery of godliness who/which was manifested in flesh, justified in spirit..." It "which" is correct it refers back the mystery; if "who" is correct it refers to Christ. Very obviously then the passage reads smoothly and makes total sense with the rest of Scripture by using either the word "who" or "which" which are attested in early manuscripts. The KJV reading is an obvious error or forgery.

Great is the mystery of godliness which/who was manifested in flesh."

So to a degree, no man who try some act of silliness when translating scripture, and no man will overwrite and or change as to what the original source has stated, but it didn't stop King James and crew sadly and quite plainly, Trinitarian translation scholars are admitting this version of the verse is not authentic. One then wonders why Trinitarians so often continue to appeal to it.

Therefore, false and or man man verses and or changed are added to scripture, in turn, blinds others and result in the blind leading the blind.

Mind you, this is but 1, of dozens of forgeries and errors to those who appeal to the KJV camp and or those in favor of later sources over the original one, especially those who do not know their Greek/Hebrew.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

I stand corrected on the Matthew scripture, which should be Matthew 27 : 40 

15 hours ago, Space Merchant said:

I believe he said to keep it Bible Scripture Only, you constantly bring up JW

And yet you have quoted yourself as comparing the KJV with the NWT 

 

15 hours ago, Space Merchant said:

In the Bible of the Jehovah's Witnesses, they to stuck to the original source, as did the others mentioned above, giving references to said verse also.

If you stick to Bible Scripture Only, surely you have to use a Bible.  If it's a BIBLE based activity, then I've quoted scriptures from the bible. 

 

On 8/15/2021 at 4:37 PM, Equivocation said:

, be it added or removed, whatever.

And i asked questions about words added. 

What I didn't do however was to be tricked into using the scriptures sited. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
14 hours ago, Equivocation said:

Mark 16:9-20

This longer version was founded much later on, was never part of the original. The Long part can only be read in the KJV and or translations that follow the later sources.

The Gospel of Mark ends at verse 8, hence Mark 16:1-8. There are 2 of the oldest and most respected manuscripts, the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus. As the oldest manuscripts are known to be the most accurate because there were fewer generations of copies. Since and the oldest manuscripts do not verses 9 to 20, it is concluded and affirmed that these verses were added later by scribes, again, like the Adulterous Woman, this passage isn't only defend by Trinitarians or that of MSC as a whole, it is viewed as spurious as well. In the 4th century, Early Church Fathers like Eusebius and Jerome noted that almost all Greek manuscripts available to them didn't really have any evidence of this longer version, although they doubtless knew those other endings existed in their time. Irenaeus himself may have known about other long endings because he made a note to it, however, these Church Fathers knew of the added verses, but even by the 4th century, Eusebius said the Greek manuscripts did not include these endings or any other one, in the originals.

14 hours ago, Equivocation said:

Revelation 1:11

As seen in the verse what is marked in red was added, no Strong's or root even supports this.

The added part was mostly from later sources which has no connection to the early ones.

Also there is no question as to why it was added, it was for a gain on the MSC side of Christianity.

11 Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea.

 

14 hours ago, Equivocation said:

1 John 5:7

Among all forgeries, this is the biggest one - The Comma Johanneum.

The real verse is For there are three that testify: [these three witnesses]

Trinitarian and those of MSC NOW admit this verse was not written by the hand of John. Having access to collections of hundreds of manuscripts, modern scholars are able to determine this verse was introduced into the Bible long after John wrote this letter. The evidence is so clear as day that it cannot be denied. However, there are still those out there, especially KJV Onlyists of the MSC crowd, who are unwilling to accept the facts on this matter and claim this verse is authentic.

My quote to Brando regarding Jesus Defender:

Quote

It is impossible to reason with a Trinitarian, such ones are way too dense in the skull compared to a child who listens and understands of what the scriptures mean and from the one who teaches said scriptures to him. Like his kind, such ones will use 1 John 5:7 and 1 Timothy 3:16 as well as a dozen of other verses said to have been forged, added, not following the oldest source. It is known to everyone that Trinitarians have forged 1 John 5:7 for the original verse says the following: For there are three that testify [witnesses]: for this original form is of the oldest source around the 4th century, we see Trinitarians use this verse, but its forged counterpart that is used by the KJV, as seen here: For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. Such has been changed via TR/JC 16th century. The same goes for 1 Timothy 3:16 for GOD was added into the verse to make Jesus appear as God when in reality, the 4th century source does not say GOD anywhere in this verse.

My quote for this one was to Srecko when he addressed Bible errors and inspired text:

Quote

Inspired Text of the Bible itself that has not been changed, forged and or added, being of the oldest source and the only source of which we have of which the Bible originates from, it is considered inspired.

In a simple sense, the Word of God which has not been altered and or tampered with.

Example:

Original verse vs. Forgery

  • Inspired Text 4th Century: For there are three that testify:
  • Uninspired Text 16th Century: For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

You can also look this up here to see who is using the inspired and or uninspired: 

    Hello guest!

Reason found here: 

    Hello guest!

Original vs. Added Verse:

  • Inspired Text 4th Century:  Does not exist because was not found in the oldest source
  • Uninspired Text 16th Century: And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

 

14 hours ago, Equivocation said:

Acts 10:48

Jesus Christ was replaced with Lord.

The Strong's show us a strong indicator that Jesus Christ (Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ) is suppose to be in the verse, however, we see Lord instead. The verse should either have in the name of Jesus Christ or in the name of our Lord Yeshua The Messiah or in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.

This some would only catch by accident if they're not paying attention, however, it can easily be missed.

14 hours ago, Equivocation said:

Acts 16:7

Similar to Acts 10:48, but the difference between most translations and the KJV is that of Jesus or Jesus is unfounded.

14 hours ago, Equivocation said:

Ephesians 3:9

A parallel with the verses in Acts, for the verses has added by Jesus Christ. There is no Strong's or root to even attest to that addition being true, more evidence to that is the Codex Sinaiticus

 

image.png

That being said, some of these are known by some, even by you JWs, but the others you mentioned are of the tricky kind, but in the realm of Hermeneutics and Textual Criticism, these are often discussed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
40 minutes ago, Patiently waiting for Truth said:

And yet you have quoted yourself as comparing the KJV with the NWT 

Not here, you were the only one to utter JWs and NWT. This is in relation to Translations in general that follow the TR and those that do not follow the TR, in correlation with manuscripts.

If you want to use the NWT, then by all means, go ahead, for if that can help you against TR related translations.

40 minutes ago, Patiently waiting for Truth said:

If you stick to Bible Scripture Only, surely you have to use a Bible.  If it's a BIBLE based activity, then I've quoted scriptures from the bible. 

This is why Textual Criticism when TR is addressed is vital relation to those verses.

This is Textual Criticism based, John.

40 minutes ago, Patiently waiting for Truth said:

And i asked questions about words added. 

What I didn't do however was to be tricked into using the scriptures sited. 

To determine if a word/passage is added or not, you have to know what Strong's and or roots that violates the text itself. "God/Deity/Divine" or "a God/a Deity" isn't a violation unless it is something other than, outside of THEOS. Likewise with your tortures stake remark, if it has no connection to what a Stavros entails, then you have a violation.

So, address the violations instead of just looking at the verse at face value. Those verses are no different from 1 Timothy 3:16, Acts 10:48 or Acts 16:7.

That being said, if you are using the NWT or anything that isn't based on TR, I don't see how you can address the above.

  • TR is based off of Greek New Testament from Erasmus, where as the verses mentioned are the effected ones in the KJV
  • If I remember correctly, the NWT is based off of Westcott and Hort.

That being said, the verse you misquoted, but was attempting to quote was Matthew 27:32.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share





×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.