Jump to content

The Protestant Community

Christian and Theologically Protestant? Or, sincerely inquiring about the Protestant faith? Welcome to Christforums the Christian Protestant community. You'll first need to register in order to join our community. Create or respond to threads on your favorite topics and subjects. Registration takes less than a minute, it's simple, fast, and free! Enjoy the fellowship! God bless, Christforums' Staff
Register now

Fenced Community

Christforums is a Protestant Christian forum, open to Bible- believing Christians such as Presbyterians, Lutherans, Reformed, Baptists, Church of Christ members, Pentecostals, Anglicans. Methodists, Charismatics, or any other conservative, Nicene- derived Christian Church. We do not solicit cultists of any kind, including Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Eastern Lightning, Falun Gong, Unification Church, Aum Shinrikyo, Christian Scientists or any other non- Nicene, non- Biblical heresy.
Register now

Christian Fellowship

John Calvin puts forward a very simple reason why love is the greatest gift: “Because faith and hope are our own: love is diffused among others.” In other words, faith and hope benefit the possessor, but love always benefits another. In John 13:34–35 Jesus says, “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” Love always requires an “other” as an object; love cannot remain within itself, and that is part of what makes love the greatest gift.
avbunyan

The Origen of all Modern Versions

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

All modern versions can be traced back to a lost philosopher named Origen in the 3rd century A.D.

 

1. Origen – 3rd century philosopher

2. Origen was from Alexandria, Egypt

3. Origen ran a school of philosophers (Col. 2:8).

4. Origen’s beliefs – didn’t believe the first three chapters of Genesis were literal, questioned the deity of Christ, works salvation, and allegorized most of Bible

5. Decided to get into the Bible translation business; came up with a 5-column hexaphala – had 4 of his philosophers to help him.  Each philosopher took a column and put down what he thought the Old Testament said.  Origen’s column was the 5th .  The translations were written in Classical Greek (more complicated), not Koine Greek (the common spoken language which the Bibles of the real New Testament were written in.

6. This hexaphala sat around until Constantine was looking for some Old Testament Bibles for his new ecumenical denomination.  He asked Eusebius where he could get some new Bibles.  Esebius said, “I know just the place!”  So, he scampers down to Egypt, asks Origen about where he could get some new versions.  Origen says, “I’ve done some translating here, take a look at my 5th column.”

7. Eusebius takes 50 copies of Origen’s 5th column and brings them back to Constantine.  Vaticanus and Sinaiaticus most likely came from these.  They were written on velum scrolls, which are why they stayed in tact so long, plus, nobody read them – God didn’t have His hand on them.  The scriptures were written on papyrus and wasted away because people read and copied them – in other words… God used them.

8. From here they end up in Rome with its religion (Catholic).

9. From here they circulate around Italy, Spain, and France (Roman Catholic).

10. In 1400’s or so these manuscripts become the Douay Rheims (Roman Catholic).

11. From there the Catholics take their version and go about conquering with the sword to the Americas.

12. The rest of the “Alexandrian bibles” stay locked up in Rome and monasteries. 

13. These “bibles” were available to the KJV translators in 1611 and they ignored them.

14. In 1881a conference was called to “update” the AV1611.  Two “Christian” bible critics (Westcott and Hort) said they had the best and oldest manuscripts.  Where do you think they got them?  You got it – Vaticanus and Sinaiticus type stuff.  They snuck them into the revision committee saying these were the best of the bunch and sold them as fish wraps disguised as manuscripts.

15. From this committee you got the RV 1881

16. America joined in the fun with their committee in 1901 – they used the same texts the RV came from and they came up with the RV1901 – from there it went to the RSV, NASV, Good News, Living Bible, NRSV, the New New New RSV, NIV, and all the rest of the new versions.

 

Bottom line – all new versions are based upon Origen’s work in the 3rd century – they are not updated King James Bibles.

God bless

Edited by avbunyan
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, avbunyan said:

All modern versions can be traced back to a lost philosopher named Origen in the 3rd century A.D.

 

1. Origen – 3rd century philosopher

2. Origen was from Alexandria, Egypt

3. Origen ran a school of philosophers (Col. 2:8).

4. Origen’s beliefs – didn’t believe the first three chapters of Genesis were literal, questioned the deity of Christ, works salvation, and allegorized most of Bible

5. Decided to get into the Bible translation business; came up with a 5-column hexaphala – had 4 of his philosophers to help him.  Each philosopher took a column and put down what he thought the Old Testament said.  Origen’s column was the 5th .  The translations were written in Classical Greek (more complicated), not Koine Greek (the common spoken language which the Bibles of the real New Testament were written in.

6. This hexaphala sat around until Constantine was looking for some Old Testament Bibles for his new ecumenical denomination.  He asked Eusebius where he could get some new Bibles.  Esebius said, “I know just the place!”  So, he scampers down to Egypt, asks Origen about where he could get some new versions.  Origen says, “I’ve done some translating here, take a look at my 5th column.”

7. Eusebius takes 50 copies of Origen’s 5th column and brings them back to Constantine.  Vaticanus and Sinaiaticus most likely came from these.  They were written on velum scrolls, which are why they stayed in tact so long, plus, nobody read them – God didn’t have His hand on them.  The scriptures were written on papyrus and wasted away because people read and copied them – in other words… God used them.

8. From here they end up in Rome with its religion (Catholic).

9. From here they circulate around Italy, Spain, and France (Roman Catholic).

10. In 1400’s or so these manuscripts become the Douay Rheims (Roman Catholic).

11. From there the Catholics take their version and go about conquering with the sword to the Americas.

12. The rest of the “Alexandrian bibles” stay locked up in Rome and monasteries. 

13. These “bibles” were available to the KJV translators in 1611 and they ignored them.

14. In 1881a conference was called to “update” the AV1611.  Two “Christian” bible critics (Westcott and Hort) said they had the best and oldest manuscripts.  Where do you think they got them?  You got it – Vaticanus and Sinaiticus type stuff.  They snuck them into the revision committee saying these were the best of the bunch and sold them as fish wraps disguised as manuscripts.

15. From this committee you got the RV 1881

16. America joined in the fun with their committee in 1901 – they used the same texts the RV came from and they came up with the RV1901 – from there it went to the RSV, NASV, Good News, Living Bible, NRSV, the New New New RSV, NIV, and all the rest of the new versions.

 

Bottom line – all new versions are based upon Origen’s work in the 3rd century – they are not updated King James Bibles.

God bless

image.png.1bf927a5717abd0dc6ac36ff1f12f24e.png

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I think you are saying the only true accurate Bible is the King James Bible?  This being your very second post,  you have gotten right down to the reason your have joined this forum;  you are here to enlighten us of our being deceived, that any modern Bible like the NASB, ESV, NKJV are all corrupted and filled with errors.

 

I have been on this journey a number of times before. Here is my very sad story.  Every person I have dealt with, that believes the KING JAMES BIBLE IS THE  "ONLY"   BIBLE  GOD HAS INSPIRED,  AND BELIEVES THE  KJV  IS WITHOUT ERRORS,   IMO has been brain washed, and did not come to this conclusion by the own personal lengthy study.  To believe the KJV Bible is the "ONLY" Bible is like saying the only vehicle we should be driving today is the Model T Ford.

 

Biblical scholars have dedicated the lives to make sure we have the oldest manuscripts, and researched, compared verses, looked at historic records to make sure we have accurate translations, especially true in the New American Standard Bible and the English Standard Bible. These two Bibles are the closest we have to being a literal translation. There are others they tend to be more functional equivalent translations.

 

The King James Bible is a good Bible, but far from being the most accurate.

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Just Mike said:

 

1. Biblical scholars have dedicated the lives to make sure we have the oldest manuscripts, and

2. researched, compared verses, looked at historic records to make sure we have accurate translations,

1. Mike - the oldest in tact bible manuscript might be the Vaticanus/Siniaticus set because they were written on animal skins so they are preserved better but that doesn't mean they can be the best. 

The earliest scriptures were written on paper like material so they have fallen apart.  

2. Accurate - based on what - what are they comparing to?  

 

Mike - can I ask you what is your absolute final authority on everything?

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, avbunyan said:

questioned the deity of Christ

 The NASB presents the Deity of Christ better than the KJV.

  • Like 2
  • Best Answer 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, avbunyan said:

1. Mike - the oldest in tact bible manuscript might be the Vaticanus/Siniaticus set because they were written on animal skins so they are preserved better but that doesn't mean they can be the best. 

The earliest scriptures were written on paper like material so they have fallen apart.  

2. Accurate - based on what - what are they comparing to?  

 

Mike - can I ask you what is your absolute final authority on everything?

I see you did not deny anything Mike said.....which speaks volumes.  But I will play your game......God is the absolute final authority on everything.  Are you going to claim God wrote the KJV or can you accept that fallible man has done his best to transmit God's word to the world?

  • Like 1
  • Best Answer 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Faber said:

 The NASB presents the Deity of Christ better than the KJV.

In what way  look at Micah 5:2 in the NASB or any new version - it says Jesus was from "ancient of days" thus saying Christ is not eternal.  We could go on here posting verses but what I want to know is my timeline and info I posted wrong.   Thanks

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Civilwarbuff said:

1. I see you did not deny anything Mike said....

2.....God is the absolute final authority on everything. 

3. Are you going to claim God wrote the KJV or can you accept that fallible man has done his best to transmit God's word to the world?

1. I basically questioned his idea that the oldest are the best. And what were these oldest he was referring to.

2. Yes God is but from where do you get this from?  What is your authority for such a statement?

3. I believe that the men in 1611 were guided by the Holy Spirit.  They were not inspired but what God had them put down was inspired and yes I believe by faith that the AV1611 is inspired scripture

God bless

  • Best Answer 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, avbunyan said:

In what way  look at Micah 5:2 in the NASB or any new version - it says Jesus was from "ancient of days" thus saying Christ is not eternal.  We could go on here posting verses but what I want to know is my timeline and info I posted wrong.   Thanks

 Thus the Lord Jesus is equated with the Father in that this was a title of Deity in Daniel 7:9, 13, 22.

 

 The NASB affirms much more clearly the fact that the Lord Jesus is to be prayed to in John 14:14 when it is compared with the KJV.

If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it. (NASB, the underlined is mine)

If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it. (KJV)

  • Best Answer 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, avbunyan said:

1. I basically questioned his idea that the oldest are the best. And what were these oldest he was referring to.

The closer you can get to original manuscripts the better; any good researcher will tell you the same thing.  

21 minutes ago, avbunyan said:

2. Yes God is but from where do you get this from?  What is your authority for such a statement?

God is my authority.....I don't understand what you can't understand about that.......Unless you are looking for some authority from man then good luck there.

23 minutes ago, avbunyan said:

3. I believe that the men in 1611 were guided by the Holy Spirit.  They were not inspired but what God had them put down was inspired and yes I believe by faith that the AV1611 is inspired scripture

You BELIEVE they were, can you present evidence of that?  Can you present evidence that later translators were not guided by the HS?  Then you are simply functioning on your belief without any evidence to support you.

  • Like 2
  • Best Answer 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Enough said?

My post concerning John 14:14 was not addressed.

  • Best Answer 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Faber said:

Enough said?

My post concerning John 14:14 was not addressed.

Farber states – “My post concerning John 14:14 was not addressed.”

Sorry Farber – I try to respond to all but I miss some.  You raise a point that I need to stop and throw out the anchor.  I am not implying that the deity of Christ is attacked in every verse of the modern versions.  The deity of Christ is supported by the majority of verses in the MVs – the problem is where the modern versions (MVs) attack the deity of Christ.  I use Mic. 5:2 as my primary verse because it is so blatant there.  Christ is not from ancient of days – he is from everlasting – see the difference?  The “ancient of days” reading originated with Origen because he did not believe in the deity of Christ. If all the verses attacked the deity then no one would read the MVs.  The danger is when error is mixed in with truth.  If you want a more thorough list of these attacks then just google statements such as, “Deity of Christ attacked by the new versions” or similar and you will find tons of sites – the evidence is irrefutable.  Just look at how many sites there are that defend the AV as compared to how many sites there are that devoted to supporting the MVs.  The MVs sites are few because their position is hard to defend.  The AV sites are many for they have a leg to stand on. Remember, the devil’s first words in the bible are, “Yea, hath God said?”  He questioned the word of God.  That is what is going on today with the MVS – they question what God said. He added and changed what God said in Gen. 3. 

So, John 14:14 does not attack the deity and may be more supportive there but what about all the verses where it attacks the deity – what to you do with those? Again just google the phrase I suggested for starters.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Civilwarbuff said:

I have no intention of reading a 21 page pdf file.......'nuff said.

I knew you wouldn't and didn't expect you to.  I would figure you would at least have done a quick scan to see where t he author was heading.  I was just showing one example of the tons of sites in support of the AV where these writers go into exhaustive detail in their defense.  Where are similar sites from the MVs? I am not saying there are none but the number of sites where the  AV is defended while showing the dangers of the MVs are exposed outnumber the MVs position 10  to 1 at least!

  • Best Answer 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Civilwarbuff said:

The closer you can get to original manuscripts the better; any good researcher will tell you the same thing.  

God is my authority.....I don't understand what you can't understand about that.......Unless you are looking for some authority from man then good luck there.

You BELIEVE they were, can you present evidence of that?  Can you present evidence that later translators were not guided by the HS?  Then you are simply functioning on your belief without any evidence to support you.

“The closer you can get to original manuscripts the better; any good researcher will tell you the same thing.”

My point is the NT was written on papyrus  paper which fell apart after being passed around and read so we will never get a whole text of these.  When folks refer to the oldest they are most likely referring to Vaticanus and Siniaticus, Origen’s work copied on vellum scrolls so they would still be available today and are – locked in the Vatican and museums.

 

“God is my authority.....I don't understand what you can't understand about that.......Unless you are looking for some authority from man then good luck there.”

I am asking you If God is your authority where do you get that from?  If you say the bible then I am going to ask you which one – there are over a hundred.  If you say the Greek text I will ask you which one for there are a bunch and all differ!  So then, what is your absolute final authority?  I will tell you mine – it is a King James Bible that you can buy at any Walmart for $5.95.

 

“You BELIEVE they were, can you present evidence of that?”

 Nope – but I can look at the fruits of the AV in missionary work, revivals, etc. and the affects it has had on history.

 

“Can you present evidence that later translators were not guided by the HS?”

Well – I just cannot see the HS directing a man to take the blood out of Col. 1:14 or changing “everlasting" to “ancient of days” in Mic. 5:2 or removing whole verses like Acts. 8:37 or attacking the 2nd coming of Christ by taking “but now” out of John 18:36 or changing Joseph to father in Luke 2:33 or removing firstborn out of Mat. 1:25 and many others.

  • Best Answer 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, avbunyan said:

Farber states – “My post concerning John 14:14 was not addressed.”

Sorry Farber – I try to respond to all but I miss some.  You raise a point that I need to stop and throw out the anchor.  I am not implying that the deity of Christ is attacked in every verse of the modern versions.  The deity of Christ is supported by the majority of verses in the MVs – the problem is where the modern versions (MVs) attack the deity of Christ.  I use Mic. 5:2 as my primary verse because it is so blatant there.  Christ is not from ancient of days – he is from everlasting – see the difference?  

Thank you avbunyan for your response.

Couldn't I also turn this around and say the KJV attacks the Deity of Chrst in John 14:14 by removing the "Me" in reference to the Lord Jesus?

 I admit that the NASB is not as clear in Micah 5:2 but it is clearer in other passages. This would not only hold true concerning John 14:14, but also Titus 2:13; 2 Peter 1:1; Jude 1:4 and quite a few others.

 

  • Best Answer 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, avbunyan said:

 

“Can you present evidence that later translators were not guided by the HS?”

Well – I just cannot see the HS directing a man to take the blood out of Col. 1:14 or changing “everlasting" to “ancient of days” in Mic. 5:2 or removing whole verses like Acts. 8:37 or attacking the 2nd coming of Christ by taking “but now” out of John 18:36 or changing Joseph to father in Luke 2:33 or removing firstborn out of Mat. 1:25 and many others.

Can't I also turn this around and say that the KJV removed "His name" (in reference to the Lord Jesus) in Revelation 14:1 or removed the "Me" (in reference to the Lord Jesus) in John 14:14 and many others?

  • Best Answer 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My PDF is bigger than your PDF:

https://hebrewisraelitescriptures.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/GREEK-ERRORS-IN-THE-KJV.pdf

 

This one is 25:  https://watch.pairsite.com/shock-awe-23.pdf

 

NASB for me.  Anything BUT the archaic KJV which has passages that are impossible to understand due to that archaic language.  NKJV much better but I prefer the superior NASB

  • Like 1
  • Best Answer 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Faber said:

Thank you avbunyan for your response.

Couldn't I also turn this around and say the KJV attacks the Deity of Chrst in John 14:14 by removing the "Me" in reference to the Lord Jesus?

 I admit that the NASB is not as clear in Micah 5:2 but it is clearer in other passages. This would not only hold true concerning John 14:14, but also Titus 2:13; 2 Peter 1:1; Jude 1:4 and quite a few others. 

 

“Thank you avbunyan for your response.”

You are welcome, Farber.

 

“Couldn't I also turn this around and say the KJV attacks the Deity of Christ in John 14:14 by removing the "Me" in reference to the Lord Jesus?”

I guess one could but doctrinally one is to address his requests to God the Father – Matt. 6:5-15, Eph. 2:18 so by Origen inserting “me” indicating that the one praying is going to Jesus is strange.  The texts the AV translators used in 1604 did not have me in them but the Catholic bible did and they had access to the Roman bible but did not refer to it ever.

 

“I admit that the NASB is not as clear in Micah 5:2 but it is clearer in other passages.”

Farber – the issue in Mic 5:2 is not that it is unclear it is clearly false doctrine.  Origen used “from ancient of days” saying Christ came from time whereas the AV said Christ came from everlasting meaning Christ is eternal.  By using “ancient of days” Origen is saying Christ came from somewhere in time and wasn’t eternal – wrong!

  • Best Answer 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Is it a sin to pray to the Lord Jesus? If yes, then please demonstrate. If no, then how is it "strange" to have "Me" in John 14:14?

2. What Origen may have said (I'd like to see a citation) or anybody else for that matter concerning Micah 5:2 does no injustice to the text itself. Affirming that the Lord Jesus "came from everlasting" is what is said of God in Psalm 90:2. In saying that His days are "ancient" He is being equated with the Father in that this was a title of Deity in Daniel 7:9, 13, 22.

  • Like 1
  • Best Answer 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Faber said:

1. Is it a sin to pray to the Lord Jesus? If yes, then please demonstrate. If no, then how is it "strange" to have "Me" in John 14:14?

2. What Origen may have said (I'd like to see a citation) or anybody else for that matter concerning Micah 5:2 does no injustice to the text itself. Affirming that the Lord Jesus "came from everlasting" is what is said of God in Psalm 90:2.

1. Probably not but the AV is more accurate and consistent regarding the doctrine of prayer as demonstrated in John 14:14.

2. Your are killing me here Faber!  LOL Understand my focus here - Origen did not  believe the deity of Christ so he says Christ had a beginning in time!  If Christ had a beginning in time then he would not be God.  This verse alone should cause the saint the set aside all MVs.

  • Best Answer 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Then the AV is inaccurate concerning prayer because the Bible teaches that the Lord Jesus is the proper recipient of prayer.

2. You keep focusing on Origen, but I keep focusing on the words of the text. - By the way, you still haven't supplied a citation from him. You asserted what you think he affirmed, but I am asking for proof. 

  • Best Answer 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Papa Zoom said:

My PDF is bigger than your PDF:

https://hebrewisraelitescriptures.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/GREEK-ERRORS-IN-THE-KJV.pdf

 

This one is 25:  https://watch.pairsite.com/shock-awe-23.pdf

 

NASB for me.  Anything BUT the archaic KJV which has passages that are impossible to understand due to that archaic language.  NKJV much better but I prefer the superior NASB

Remember Papa the site I presented was just an overview/review of the work.  The actual work is much larger with much more info. 

 

Archaic?  This is a poor  argument for just because we may not use the word anymore doesn't mean it is wrong - it may just mean we are dumber now. 

Impossible  to understand?  Mercy - the AV was the primary book used in the in the home between 1611 to 1800's or so to teach reading, grammar, etc.!  it seems those old farmers and tinkerers had no trouble understanding those archaic words. These "dumb" backwoodsmen produced t he Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.  My 10 children had no problem with the language of the AV.  The AV was translated when the English language was at its peak.  What happened  to yo Papa?  The NASB makes Jesus a begotten god in John 1:18.

  • Best Answer 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, avbunyan said:

The NASB makes Jesus a begotten god in John 1:18.

I'm glad you mentioned this passage because this another example where the NASB applies theos (God) to the Lord Jesus whereas the AV does not.

Begotten does not mean created in this passage.

  • Best Answer 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
Articles - News - Privacy Policy