ChristiaNet MallWorld's Largest Christian MallChristian BlogsFree Bible QuizzesFree Ecards and Free Greeting CardsLoans, Debt, Business and Insurance Articles

Different Verions Of The Bible

With so many different version of the bible how can a new Christian possibly know which one they should buy? Does it matter which one as long as we actually READ it?

Join Our Free Singles and Take The Bible History Quiz
 ---RitaH on 7/15/07
     Helpful Blog Vote (11)

Post a New Blog

OK. I've enjoyed our discuussion.

Homoousious= Extra-biblical

God Bless
---scott on 2/4/09

scott - I find it very disputeable that those who supported the Nicea Council concerning the nature of Christ used 'extrabiblical' sources to arrive at their conclusion that Jesus was fully God in both His natures.

However, as the tax season is upon us and I am starting to get clients, I would like Bob and others to finish this dialogue.

In Christ (and there is no better place to be), lee
---lee1538 on 2/4/09

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 Tim 3:16 All Scripture is inspired by God. 2 Peter 1:21 for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God. I believe God has enough power to make sure all translations made from the original King James are accurate. Many prominent pastors use the New American Standard which is my favorite. A few churches do have their own bibles. Go to the book store and see which one you like the best and buy it. Consult with your pastor, he will be teaching you.
---Bob on 2/4/09

Lee1538 2

At Matthew 15:3 Christ takes issue with the Scribes and Pharisees and makes a powerful comparison with what God (or scripture) actually said (vs 4) "Honor your father and Mother") with the extra-biblical thinking that had developed because of unscriptural Jewish tradition.

He says (vs 2) "Why is it you also overstep the commandments of God because of your tradition?"

vs 8 "This people honors me with their lips yet their heart is far removed from me. It is in vain that they keep worshipping me."

Again, theology or doctrine must be measured against God's word to determine "validity" or "perversion." The words of men are unreliable.
---scott on 2/4/09

Lee1538 1

The reason that term (and the theological implications of the one "extra" iota) was so hotly contested by the opposing faction was that the word itself was extra-biblical. I believe the word was rejected or ignored by later councils because of it's controversial usage, though the intrinsic meaning had already influenced 4th century Christology.

Homoousious means "of one being or essence." There is nothing in scripture to support its use.

The question is, why would it take uninspired men, with language not found in scripture (borrowed from pagan Greek philosophy) to "explain" or elaborate on God's inspired word?

Had the Almighty himself left something important out?
---scott on 2/4/09

scott -Employing unscriptural, philosophical language like "Homoousious" to define the relationship of the Father and Son at Nicea was an egregious departure from the example of our Lord.

Was not the term 'homoousios' (of the same substance) versus 'homoiousios' (of a similar substance) was really an affirmation as to what scripture meant?

The contest was between Arius who taught that the one who had come to us in Jesus Christ was not truly God incarnate, but a lesser being, a creature. Whereas Athanasius taught the Jesus was in reality fully God in the flesh who existed prior to creation.
---lee1538 on 2/3/09


Who could have more appropriately and profoundly relied on his own words than Jesus Christ while making a defense against "heretical" Satan while being tempted by him in the wilderness. (Luke 4:1-13) Christ could have dazzled him with awe-inspiring intellect.

And yet Christ set the perfect example in reliance on God's word as the basis for defense. In all three cases (vs 5-12) Christ refuted Satan by citing God's inspired word saying "it is written..." Quoting Deut 8:3, Deut. 6:13 and Deut. 6:16.

Employing unscriptural, philosophical language like "Homoousious" to define the relationship of the Father and Son at Nicea was an egregious departure from the example of our Lord.
---scott on 2/3/09

scott - while I agree with you to a point, I believe that it was the church that determined (and formalized) the basic doctrines of the church, however, that based upon the interpretation of scripture by the leadership.

And yes, the grievous wolves that have entered the church have attempted to distort that basic doctrine as they often had their own agenda for power and that is why Paul was determined to appoint elders & deacons in the churches that he founded to perserve those doctrines (20:28).
---lee1538 on 2/3/09


No. It is not faith in the decisions of uninspired (even well intentioned) men who came after the inspired bible writers, that is the basis for determining the "validity of doctrine." It is God's word.

"All Scripture is...profitable for" 2 Timothy 3:16

Paul cautioned: "After my departing grievous wolves shall enter in among you...speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples..." Acts 20:29,30

"Perverse" "Diastrepho- to distort, misinterpret, corrupt, turn away."

"Doctrine" is measured against God's word to determine "validity" or "perversion."
---scott on 2/3/09

Matthew 16:18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

When Christ told us that he would establish His church, it was much like a woman having a baby - no instruction manuals followed its birth.

It did however, have the supervision of His Holy Spirit and it took councils to formalize many of its basic beliefs.

Is it not by faith that we accept the decisions made by the church over the centuries as to the validity of its doctrine?
---lee1538 on 2/3/09

Lee1538 Re "What was formalized was basically...the dominant belief among the leadership of the early church."

SInce even the New Catholic Encyclopedia acknowledges that "Among the Apostolic Fathers there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality (a three in one God)" it's the "formalization" that you refer to that many feel was a deviation from scripture.

It's also notable that at Nicea, rather than relying solely on scripture to define (many feel RE-define) the relationship between the father and son, the word "Homoiousious" had to be employed. A word borrowed from Greek philosophy and, like the word "Trinity," not found in scripture.
---scott on 2/3/09

Scott - *The council of Nicea 325 only focused on the relationship between the Father and Son. The Holy Spirit was not part of the formulation until Constantinople 381.

I believe you have that correct.

The church as we can see plainly from its history really started to formalize many of its doctrinal beliefs starting in the 4th century however, what was formalized was basically what was held as the dominant belief among the leadership of the early church.

Prior to that time, the church was spending much its time trying to survive under the persecution of secular powers. It did not have much for centralized leadership except in certain individuals who were head of the various churches.
---lee1538 on 1/29/09

scott - in regard to your comments on Nicea I would have to do some more research.

What I quoted to you was from The Story of Christianity by Gonzalez which is a common textbook used in many seminaries.
---lee1538 on 1/28/09

Every Bible version is colored, and often distorted, by the theological biases of its translators. All we can do if we have no formal theological training is read a version that we find readable, and make sense of it the best we can prayerfully.
---JohnnyB on 1/28/09


It doesn't matter who is doing it - putting words in God's mouth is a very dangerous thing. This is why I am very wary of people who say "Thus saith the LORD" about any personal prophecies, or "God told me to..." or "God is saying..." about anything except direct quotations from the Bible that ACTUALLY say "Thus saith the LORD". While some people may actually have the right to say this, many people say it who don't, and are putting God's name on their own fleshly opinions (and thus taking God's name in vain).
---StrongAxe on 1/28/09


The council of Nicea 325 only focused on the relationship between the Father and Son. The Holy Spirit was not part of the formulation until Constantinople 381.

Consider just how long that was after the inspired words of Christ and the apostles were recorded.

Some 283 years after John penned his gospel. For some perspective: Slavery was only abolished in the US 145 years ago.

"The formulation 'one God in three Persons' was not firmly established...prior to the end of the 4th century. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective." New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967, Vol. XIV, p. 299
---scott on 1/28/09

Read These Insightful Articles About Internet Services

Are you convinced (regarding the original topic of discussion) that the NIV and TEV translator's additional words at Colossians Chpt. 1 are justified though not found in any Greek manuscript?

Does a particular theological view give translators license to take liberties with the inspired word of God when the text itself does not say what they really want it to say?
---scott on 1/28/09

scott - the debate will continue ad infinitum regarding the concept of the Trinity as this was the scrap between the Arian and Nicene parties - both claiming the Bible for their position.

When Athanasius convinced many in the church the formula of Nicea could be interpreted to mean it was acceptable to refer to the Father, Son, & Holy Spirit as one substance as long as this was not understood to obliterate the distinction among the 3, that it was also legitimate to speak of 3 substances, and not 3 gods, most of the church rallied to the Nicene Council.

The issue was settled among most of the church leaders at the synod of Alexandria 362 C.E.

The Story of Christianity, p.179 Justo L. Gonzalez - a common seminary text.
---lee1538 on 1/28/09

"A good example of this is the Jehovah's Witness New World Translation and the Adventists Clear Word"

There's no such as the latter. There is a paraphrase made by one man--but, it is not a deniominational Bible. In fact, I don't know of a single pastor who would use it in the church. And, I never even heard of it till a critic elsewhere mentioned it. I use the Greek and Bibleworks 7.0.
---djconklin on 1/28/09

A creed can contain non or extra Biblical belief. That does not mean all creeds are wrong.

The doctrine of Trinity is based on what the Bible says.

There is only one GOD.
JESUS is equal with the Father.

To understand that the doctrine of the Trinity Father, Son and HOLY SPIRIT was presented because it fit with there being only one GOD. But three who were GOD.
---Samuel on 1/28/09

Read These Insightful Articles About Online Stores

Not sure I follow.

You referred to the "Summary statements of Christian beliefs ["Constructed]...guidelines to Christian beliefs."

Often those "constructed statements of belief" contain extra-biblical thought that can not be supported in scripture alone.

"The adoption of a non-biblical phrase at Nicea constituted a landmark in the growth of dogma: the Trinity is "true", since the Church - speaking by its Bishops - says so, though the Bible does not!." - Encyclopedia Britannica, 14th Edition [1936], 501, Dogma/Theology

Even the New Catholic Encyclopedia agrees that the 4th century creed did not reflect the thinking of first century Christians.
---scott on 1/28/09

*Many share your view because creeds and catechism have risen to and beyond the authority of God's inspired text

I disagree as a creed really is a statement of belief.

From Westminster dictionary of theological terms, a creed (Lat. credo, "I believe") is nothing more than a formal statement of belief. Christians churches from the early church period to the present have often constructed summary statements of Christian beliefs...they contain guidelines to Christian beliefs as they are understood by that body.

And a catechism (the ancient Didache 90 a.d. was merely a catechism) is merely a means "of instruction, often in question & answer form, that conveys a summary of Christian theological beliefs".
---lee1538 on 1/27/09

*We need the Bible to say in language we can understand what it says.

Take a course in Greek and you will see that all too often the selection of the English to fit the Greek can be a real problem and must be guided by ones theology.

In any case, we can all agree that in Christ one is complete.
---lee1538 on 1/27/09

No. You said "The NWT does not follow the 'catholic' or universal accepted doctrinal beliefs of the church. Its translators are non-orthodox..."

I would argue that "doctrinal beliefs" stand or fall based on their implicit foundation on God's word. Using some theological standard to determine who or what is "orthodox" rather than the bible is futile. Many share your view because creeds and catechism have risen to and beyond the authority of God's inspired text.

"The word of God is living, and active, and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing even to the dividing of soul and spirit...and quick to discern the thoughts and intents of the heart." Hebrews 4:12 ASV
---scott on 1/27/09

Send a Free Christmas Ecard

What I wish is that we have Bibles that are translated according to what the words mean. Not to have the translators try to make me believe what they wish.

We need the Bible to say in language we can understand what it says. This is one of the reason I read many translations so as to get closer to the actual words. I also use Strong's plus Crudens concordances, Vine's Bible dictionary as well as those published by the SDA church.
---Samuel on 1/27/09

Frank I do not agree with you. In the 1940's the 'Dead Sea Scrolls' were found covering much of the OT. When checked by these 2000 + year old documents the relevant current OT texts were shown to be accurate, with only a small number of minor errors.
---Warwick on 1/27/09

*My mistake. I thought this discussion was about bible translation.

If your argument is not based on an examination of the original inspired text, but on whether someone adheres to the theology of "The Church," then there really is not much more to discuss.
I merely answered your question that translators even of the original text, are guided by their theology. Since that is a problem, any respectable translation team has members from many different denominations.
---lee1538 on 1/27/09

If anyone of us are being truthful, we would admit that the bible, having gone thru so many translations, and having faced the constant change to language that time brings, is a powerful source of inspiration, and not something from which literal translation is even possible.

Be love.
---frank_cos on 1/26/09

Read These Insightful Articles About Business Training


My mistake. I thought this discussion was about bible translation.

If your argument is not based on an examination of the original inspired text, but on whether someone adheres to the theology of "The Church," then there really is not much more to discuss. You appear to have raised extra-biblical thought and theology to the level where (I believe) only God's word belongs.

I'm interested in bible study, the original biblical languages and first century, primitive Christianity.
---scott on 1/26/09

scott *How is this appropriate for the NIV & TEV, etc., but not the NWT?

The NWT does not follow the 'catholic' or universal accepted doctrinal beliefs of the church. Its translators are non-orthodox and subscribe to doctrines rejected by the church and its leaders over the centuries.

While this does NOT disprove how they translate from the original languages, they must do so within the guidelines of their denominational beliefs.

So if you want to believe that Jesus was a created being (etc.) in contrast to the belief of the saints of His church, you should pick the NWT. I would rather stick with translations that uphold the dominant doctrinal views of those whom we recognize as leaders of the church. It's your choice.
---lee1538 on 1/26/09

Lee1538 Re the addition of "Over" (NIV) and "Superior to" (TEV) you said:

"To bring out the meaning" and "Translators are chosen based upon what they believe about doctrine."
How is this appropriate for the NIV & TEV, etc., but not the NWT?

"There [is] no real exact equivalency."
Explain what part of the Greek in Paul's words represents anything close to an "equivalence" to "Over" and "Superior to."

"Translators...hold to the basic doctrines of the church."
Then even if the actual inspired text does not support a particular rendering, doctrine or theology takes precedence over accuracy?
---scott on 1/26/09

scott - *Are the additions in the NIV and TEV justified though the words are not found in the original Greek.

Probably in order to bring out the meaning of the verses. You are translating from one language into another and too often there are no real exact equivalency.

*Is the justification for questioning the NWT in this regard but not the NIV, TEV, etc., etc., based on theological preference?

Translators, I would believe do hold to the basic doctrines of the church as preached from its conception and should be a guide in translation would you not say?

No doctrine of the church is based upon any single verse of the Bible and is it not true that translators are chosen based upon what they believe about doctrine?
---lee1538 on 1/23/09

Read These Insightful Articles About Software


Are the additions in the NIV and TEV justified though the words are not found in the original Greek?

Where did your "course in Greek" teach you the line would be drawn between adding original meaning and adding theology?

I find the criticism of the NWT in this regard really fascinating. Admittedly, the process of translation requires (particularly in the Dynamic Equivalence approach as opposed to Formal) adding words from the "target" language for clarity and readability. While keeping a close eye on the original languages.

Is the justification for questioning the NWT in this regard but not the NIV, TEV, etc., etc., based on theological preference?

If not, why not?
---scott on 1/23/09

Regarding Christ being a created being:
In Revelation 3:14.The translators of the KJV possibly decided to use the word beginning in their translation because there is an implication of Commencement in this words use in other scriptures.

Strongs Concordance discloses the word translated as beginning is the Greek word Arche (746), **A commencement. Chief (in various applications of order, time, place or rank): beginning, corner (at the) first (estate) magistrate, powers, principality, principle, rule.**

In Revelation 3:14 Jesus appears to be referring to Himself as the FIRST MAGISTRATE or the CHIEF of the creation.
---David on 1/22/09


It doesn't take a Greek scholar to determine why words like "Over" and "Superior to" have been added.

The additional words (not found in any Greek manuscript) change the meaning of Paul's statement about Christ being the "firstborn of all creation," PROTOTOKOS PASHS KTISEWS.

It is implied (without any acknowledgment to the reader regarding these alterations) that Christ is not created, as Paul seems to clearly state, but rather, is the Creator himself.

Those who agree with that theology will accept the additional words as driven by context. You are critical of the NWT for doing the same thing. "Other" is an addition based on their understanding of the context.
---scott on 1/22/09

Colossians 1::
"7. ... who is for you a faithful minister of CHRIST" "8. WHO is..." "13. WHO hath..." "15. WHO is..."
These are subordinate clauses referring to verse 7, so "Christ" changes nothing.
Images are visible, so "visible" changes nothing.
"God" in v.15 IS in the Greek.
A firstborn human is a son, so "son" changes nothing.
I don't know enough Greek to comment on "over"/"superior".

It's just as bad if NIV/TEV does it, but I know of no doctrines that hinge on these words (unlike JW's belief that Jesus was a created being, which DOES hinge on "other" in Colossians 1:16).
---StrongAxe on 1/22/09

Read These Insightful Articles About Advertising

scott - For Colossians 1:15-20 there are 114 Greek words.

The problem that translators have is to find the most suitable English word (or expression) that would bring out the original meaning of the verses.

If you were to take a course in Greek (I have) you would easily see the problem and find that most of the modern versions are justified in how they translated these verses.

However, bear in mind that no doctrine of scripture is derived from one and only one verse unless you like to handle snakes - see Mark 16.

And few reputable modern translations truly cast any disparity on any doctrine of the Faith.
---lee1538 on 1/22/09


The italicized words in the following verses are not in the original text and are not actually italicized or bracketed in the NIV or TEV Bibles.

"He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation."
Col 1:15 NIV

"Christ is the visible likeness of the invisible God. He is the first-born Son, superior to all created things." Col 1,15 TEV

Are you equally concerned with these obvious liberties? SInce these additions definitely add to the theological flavor of the verses (and without letting the readers know these words are additions) would you also consider the NIV and TEV "misleading, presumptuous, and dangerous?"
---scott on 1/21/09

StrongAxe Re " Greek grammar"

It's interesting to note what a word count for Colossians 1:15-20 reveals.

KJV= 135 words
NASB= 139 words
NW= 160 words
NAB= 123 words
NIV=127 words
NRSV= 127 words
AB= 194 words
TEV 166 words

Many additions are of course appropriate and borne from the dynamic equivalent translation process. But clearly not all of these variations can be justified by context or grammar.

And regardless of how one understands Paul's reference to Christ as the "Firstborn of all creation," we should not allow theological bias to criticize one translation for doing what others do as well. Is it acceptable if we happen to agree with the slant or spin?
---scott on 1/21/09


Oh no, insertions of words not actually present is often required due to differences in grammar between different languages. (Two common examples are articles (both Hebrew and Greek have "the" but not "a") and the verb "to be" (Hebrew generally omits it in the present tense)).

However, translators should only insert words when they are implied by the grammar or the context. They should NOT take liberties and insert words based entirely on their own imaginations that are not indicated by the text. The use of "other" in Collossians 1:16 is an example of this - it is not implied in any way by Greek grammar, so adding it is misleadning, presumptuous, and dangerous (see Revelation 22:18).
---StrongAxe on 1/21/09

Read These Insightful Articles About Eating Disorders

I hesitate to jump into a discussion with you on this topic since our last exchange ended with me scratching my head in bewilderment...

At any rate...are you saying that the insertion of words that are not in the Greek (or Hebrew) itself is unacceptable? Or just if it happens to conflict with someone's particular theological view?

I'd have to do some digging, but my guess is that you'd find many translations take, what some might consider liberties, that support a translator (or committee's) particular theological view. No?

Would you be equally critical of translations that have done so, particularly if they don't make those insertions apparent to the reader with the use of brackets?
---scott on 1/21/09


As lee1538 points out, JW's "New World Translation" has many examples where translators demonstrated doctrinal bias by deliberate mistranslation.

For example, in Colossians 1:16:
KJV: "For by him were all things created..."
NWT: "because by means of him all [other] things were created..."

"other" is not in the Greek. NWT uses [brackets] showing that it is implied without being written. KJV shows such words in italics.

However, there is no justification for "other" here. The JW's believe Jesus was a created being, so he could not have created himself - thus, this verse contradicts their teachings unless 'other' is added.
---StrongAxe on 1/21/09

The influence of theological preference is something that has been woven into many translations of God's word, some subtle, some blatant. But what examples of scriptural "degradation" are you referring to in the NWT that can not be supported by the original languages. What verses specifically?
---scott on 1/20/09

scott - *I was wondering what examples of "degradation" you are referring to

For instance some verses had to be changed so to fit certain key doctrines concerning the divinity of Christ - was he created or did he exist eternally - the JW's believe that he was the Archangel Michael prior to his birth in Bethlehem.

Verses also modifed to support their belief that the Holy Spirit was not a person but an influence or power, etc. and other verses that support the concept of the Trinity.

Any good book on Jehovah's Witnesses as a cult should bring these fact out.

If you need further information contact me lee1538.
---lee1538 on 1/20/09

Read These Insightful Articles About Travel Packages

I noticed that you made a similar comment about the NWT earlier. You may be right, but I was wondering what examples of "degradation" you are referring to. I'm not a JW, but It's one of many versions of the bible I have in my collection.
---scott on 1/20/09

*Type 'missing verses in Bible" in your search window. You will find at least 16 verses in the King James that are not in newer more modern versions. Some of these verses are important. The claim is that these verses were added to King James later.

The reason they are not in some of the modern versions is that they cannot be validated as being in any reliable Greek or Hebrew source.

Fortunately no key doctrine of the Christian faith fails with most non-denominational versions. You would have to have the JW New World Translation or the Clear Word Bible to see any degradation of any Biblical doctrine as held by the church.
---lee1538 on 1/20/09

If there are 12 different versions of the Bible then each must be new and unique. If they are not then there is plagerism and copy-right infringements to deal with. That means 12 different ways to say somewhat the same thing. That means there is the possibility of change of meaning and loss of nuance just to make things different enough to be called a new translation or adaptation.
Type 'missing verses in Bible" in your search window. You will find at least 16 verses in the King James that are not in newer more modern versions. Some of these verses are important. The claim is that these verses were added to King James later.
---Nick on 1/20/09

David, it's my pleasure. God-speed to you.
---Eloy on 1/16/09

Read These Insightful Articles About Credit Repair

Well, you want to read the one that is closest to the Kings James Version. For a new Christian, alot of times the KJV is kind of confusing, so they start with something more simple to understand. I just recently got (for Christmas) the New King James Version and it is the closest you can get to the original (in keeping with the poetry style that the KJV has) Any you read is better then none-but the closest you can get to the original is best!! I recommend the New King James version.
---cindy on 1/15/09

Eloy: Thank you for the information.
---David on 1/15/09

David, the Greek Constantinopolitan MSS. You can find a copy of it in: "The English Hexapla", London, Samuel Bagster and Son 1841. It is the original greek text after Dr.M.A.Scholz. This book also contains a copy of: Wyclif 1380 (1st English translated from the latin), Tyndale 1534 (1st English translated from the Greek), Cranmer 1539, Geneva 1557, Rheims 1582, and Authorized KJV 1611: thus the book is called The English Hexapla because it contains 6 of the most important translations of the New Testament, and at the top of each page the original greek text is written. This is a real gem for the serious Christian seeker. You can purchase a facsimile of this online. I think when I got mine many years ago it cost about $100.
---Eloy on 1/15/09

Eloy: I would appreciate your assistance. I notice several offers on the net for Greek New Testament material. Could you tell me the exact title, publisher, translator etc of the book you recommend? I assume a copy could then be found at a Bible book store or on line. Thank you.
---David on 1/14/09

Read These Insightful Articles About Christian Products

Yes Eloy, one can truly appreciate what the translators have done by studying the original Greek & Hebrew scriptures as they must truly make a choice between what English (or other languages) words that should be selected to bring out the true meaning of the original.

Unfortunately there are those who adhere to what is known as the 'paper pope' chosing instead not to abide in Christ and walk by the Spirit but by the letter which kills.
2 Cor. 3:6
---Lee1538 on 1/14/09

Yes, it matters very much, because not all bibles on the market are "Holy" Bibles, for many are "unholy": just as many churches today are also nonChristian and are instead whites tombs and synagogues of Satan. I recommend the 1560 Geneva Bible for the English version, and for the more serious Christian student I also recommend a copy of the Greek New Testament scriptures, and a copy of the Hebrew and Aramaic (Syriac) old testament scriptures.
---Eloy on 1/13/09

I once told a KJV fanatic minister that I learned much from reading a modern version of the Bible. His reply was that one may always find a quarter in a garbage can. My reply was that I seem to be getting richer by each reading and can find no reason not to continue as my garbage can seems to be one from the US Mint.
---Lee1538 on 1/13/09

Different versions of the bible?

Different people cashing in on it's popularity, Hum mm Just Like a Chinese whisper, the more people that get the message the more the message is distorted.
---Carla3939 on 1/13/09

Read These Insightful Articles About Christian Divorce

Scott: I Had not heard of Ruckmans Unkown Bible. WOW! That certainly puts Mr. Ruckman in a new light. One could wonder if his knowledge of languages is the same quality as his theology. I appreciate the information.
---David on 1/13/09

John is actually the nicest thing I've been called on this site. No worries.

I'd be happy to take a look at Ruckman's comments on the Greek (if I can find it).

But one thing's for sure- with the hotly debate issue of Christ's diety (or homousios) during the so called Arian controversy...if THAT verse existed originally it would not only have been used, it would have been the cornerstone of defense against arian "heretics."

It never was referred to. Ever.
---scott on 1/13/09

A simple search reveals some interesting views held by Mr. Ruckman. And no, I have NOT checked any of these statements for accuracy as opposed to simple internet bashing. Something you could research further if interested.

In his "Unknown Bible" Ruckman claims to hold to 14 "biblical truths" which all other Bible teachers have overlooked." They include:

- Angels are thirty-three year old males without wings, and all women in the Church Age will receive thirty-three year old male bodies at the Rapture.

- The flood mentioned in 2 Peter 3 is not Noah's flood but is one that supposedly occurred at the judgment of the earth, when Satan was cast out of Heaven.
---scott on 1/13/09

Scott: First an apology for addressing my previous post to *John* rather than to you: Do not know where that came from. I do not question any of the facts in your last post. My confidence in God does is not affected by the presence or absence of controversial verses. We are both aware that 1 John 5:7 has been thrashed over for centuries. Scholars comments show as much emotion as fact. Words like Perverted, Vile, Zealous and, Respectable, bring many commentaries into question. I am interested in P.S. Ruckmans claim that the three words SPIRIT, WATER & BLOOD are neuter gender thus requiring neuter articles. The articles retained in verse 8 are masculine. Verse 7 is needed to make the verse grammatically correct.
---David on 1/13/09

Read These Insightful Articles About Christian Marriage

I have read the New Century Translation from cover to cover and as no Christian doctrine is based upon any single verse, I would say that it is a trustworthy version.
---lee1538 on 1/13/09


"JOHANNINE COMMA...occurs only in MSS (almost exclusively Latin) of a late date, are omitted in the RV, and are certainly not part of the original text of the Epistle." The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, F.L.Cross, Oxford University Press, 1963.

"The famous interpolation ("and these three are one") is not printed even in RSVn, and rightly. It is... never used in the early trinitarian controversies. No respectable Greek MS contains it. Appearing first in a late 4th cent. Latin text, it entered the Vulgate and finally the NT of Erasmus."
Peake's Commentary on the Bible, edtors M.Black and H.H.Rowley, reprint of 1964, p.103
---scott on 1/13/09

John: All sources relating to 1 john 5:7 are very lengthy thus making a response in this blog format difficult. Here are a few comments gleaned from a multitude of pages and sources. I fear you will have to do your own research to evaluate the validity of the statements. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo in 400 favored the inclusion. Dr. Fredrick Nolen established the inclusion in the Latin church prior to the introduction of the Vulgate. *Integrity of the Greek Vulgate - vxii - vxiii*. F.F. Bruce bemoaned the fact that a Greek Manuscript was found that backed the AV. All Waldensian scriptures from 2nd century forward include it. Verses five through eight require verse seven to be grammatically correct.
---David on 1/13/09

David, Re "The vast majority of manuscripts...indicate these verses should be included."

"1 John 5:7 (one phrase removed)."

The phrase in question is not in the oldest greek manuscripts. It is a later addition and therefore has been removed by most translations.
---scott on 1/12/09

Read These Insightful Articles About Debt Consolidation

Matt 17:21, 18:11.
Mark 7:16, 9:44, 9:46, 11:26, 15:28.
Luke 17:36, 23:17. John 5:4.
Acts 8:37, 15:34, 24:7, 28:29.
Romans 16:24.
1 John 5:7 (one phrase removed).
The vast majority of manuscripts and witnesses indicate these verses should be included in scripture.
---David on 1/12/09

The New Century Version: This dynamic equivalence version began as a project of the World Bible Translation Center in 1978 intended to produce a version adapted to the needs of deaf people. It was done with a third-grade vocabulary and very short sentences. 1983 the New Testament was revised. The complete Bible again revised in 1986. Word Publishing published an extensive, revision in 1991 designed to make the version suitable for an older readership, with longer sentences and more fluent style.. The term *dynamic equivalence* indicates the original NCV was built on translations produced by the notorious skeptics Wescott and Hort. Kurt Aland, himself a skeptic, declared Horts theory of dynamic equivalence to be a relic of the past.
---David on 1/12/09

Manuscripts and copies underlying todays English bibles come from two streams. The Syrian stream of Hebrew and Greek copies & manuscripts are reputed to show more careful copying and fewer differences than the Alexandrian stream that teems with sloppy copying and striking differences between copies. The KJV, while translated from relatively few Syrian witnesses, has now been supported by hundreds of recently discovered ancient manuscripts. Fifth century Alexandrian translator Origen was deeply involved in Gnosticism. Bible skeptics and translators Westcott and Hort expressed hatred for KJV and based their work on Alexandrian manuscripts and codices. All modern bibles except KJV and NKJV are based on Westcott & Horts translations.
---David on 1/12/09

KJV reads - John 9:39 For judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not might see, and that they which see might be made blind. **** New Living Translation reads - I have come into the world to give sight to those who are spiritually blind and to show those who think they see that they are blind.

KJV reads - Rev 13:10 He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity, he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword. **** NLT reads - The people of God who are destined for prison will be arrested and taken away, these destined for death will be killed.

See any difference?
---David on 1/9/09

Read These Insightful Articles About Refinancing

KJV The last portion of Jeremiah 31:22 reads - For the Lord hath created a new thing on the earth, a woman shall compass a man. **** NLT reads - For the Lord will cause something new and different to happen - - Israel shall seek him.

The NLT which is an upgrade of Doctor Taylors Paraphrase, The Living Bible, is better than the first Taylor attempt but it still retains some really weird readings. My abbreviation for his book is TP.
---David on 1/9/09

I have a large collection of translations including the NWT. I have often heard comments like yours about the NWT and (while you may be right) is there an example of a NWT text that can't be supported by the original biblical languages, the lexicons, etc., or that wasn't rendered similarly by other (non-witness) translators?

I'm curious why you didn't mention other "mainstream" translations particularly paraphrased versions like the "Living Bible" that clearly take enormous liberties with the inspired text.

Is it only appropriate to accept a particular version (with blatant alterations) if we happed to agreee with the theological slant they've added or enhanced?
---scott on 1/8/09

The way I understand it as long as the new version has the Blood in it. I only have three or four different versions, plus some King James, which I feel is good. However, I wouldn't mind having more versions. What counts is that you are saved by His Blood. Get some Bible tools. I am a firm believer in them, because God was the one who said to go and get them. He said that I needed some Bible tools. I went to the library for about an year, then started buying some. Have a great life as unto the Lord, my friend.
---catherine on 1/8/09

I found it to be very disturbing when I took my daughter to a drama practice at the church, and I was checking out their 'Good News' version of the Bible there. I started reading the book of Joel, and I was amazed how that version was so very different than my 'King James Version' I am so used to reading. It was almost like reading a totally different book. Does anyone else feel disturbed, and perhaps even alarmed concerning these Biblical variations? Please tell me how you feel about this issue.
---Anne on 1/8/09

Read These Insightful Articles About Franchises

I recommend the New King James version. ('New' means they take out the thees and ye's etc.)
---Anne on 1/7/09

*Many denominatons even write their own bible according the founder's interpretation.

As some denominations cannot justify their peculiar doctrinal stands based upon scripture alone as it has been traditionally given to us over the centuries in the Greek and Hebrew, they must re-write sections of holy writ to justify their doctrinal beliefs.

A good example of this is the Jehovah's Witness New World Translation and the Adventists Clear Word

It is very important that we have the gift of discernment in what we see happening today in those Bibles that are infected with peculiar doctrines of the cults.
---Lee1538 on 1/7/09

There are over 3,000 major Christian denominations in the world today each having their own traditions, ways of living, and interpretations of the Bible. Many denominatons even write their own bible according the founder's interpretation. This is Satan's elaborate end time deception, the great delusion, causing confusion within Christiandom and the great falling away. Christians study the bible, and study the bible, and study the bible - even knowing it forwards and back - without developing an intimate relationship with God himself. Christians today depend more on concordances, author's opinions, novels, and other Christian reference books instead of allowing the Holy Spirit for guidance. Christians know about God, but deny his power.
---Steveng on 1/7/09

Copyright© 1996-2015 ChristiaNet®. All Rights Reserved.