Recovery Bible = Corrupted Word Of God!

[Bible-believer]

Originally Posted by Timotheist

BB, please elaborate.

KJ is right or wrong by adding the word 'now'?

Out goes “NOW” from the RV, NASV (by the way, RV is just another copy of ASV kind) and etc, although every Greek manuscript extant says “Gk.: nun/νῦν nŷn.”
So, are you or not a pre-millennialist? If not, then we are not on the same ground.
Anyway, a man who is engaged in altering "words" is a man who is engaged in changing the meaning of a sentence.

[Timotheist]

Originally Posted by Bible-believer

Out goes “NOW” from the RV, NASV (by the way, RV is just another copy of ASV kind) and etc, although every Greek manuscript extant says “Gk.: nun/νῦν nŷn.”
So, are you or not a pre-millennialist? If not, then we are not on the same ground.
Anyway, a man who is engaged in altering "words" is a man who is engaged in changing the meaning of a sentence.

If by that term do I think the first resurrection and a kingdom lasting 1000 years are in our future, then yes.

If it means something more than that, then perhaps no.

[Timotheist]

Thanks, Nell!

To everybody else, perhaps the heaven/hell discussion can be continued in that thread, although it will likely be contaminated with the 2022 standard of using ridicule as a debate tactic that some have adopted since 2008.

[Bible-believer]

Originally Posted by Timotheist

If by that term do I think the first resurrection and a kingdom lasting 1000 years are in our future, then yes.

Your "term" is vague. If that's what you define the "premillennialist," you are probably not.

Originally Posted by Timotheist

KJ is right or wrong by adding the word 'now'?

Well, your turn, Is NASV right or wrong by omitting the word "now?"

[Bible-believer]

Here is another one:

Matt. 1:25 KJV
And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

NASV, RV, ...
RV: And he did not know her until she bore a son. And he called His name Jesus.
NASV: but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he named Him Jesus.


Why the NASV has removed the word “firstborn” from Matthew 1:25, we may strongly suspect "somebody" of trying to help the Pope out with his bunco about “the perpetual virginity of Mary” (and Joseph!).

Yet no matter how and what help, the Mary of the Bible and the Mary of Roman Catholicism are as far apart as the missionary “Patricius” of Britain and the "St. Patrick" of the Irish Republican Army.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Bible-believer

Here is another one:

Matt. 1:25 KJV
And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

NASV, RV, ...
RV: And he did not know her until she bore a son. And he called His name Jesus.
NASV: but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he named Him Jesus.


Why the NASV has removed the word “firstborn” from Matthew 1:25, we may strongly suspect "somebody" of trying to help the Pope out with his bunco about “the perpetual virginity of Mary” (and Joseph!).

Yet no matter how and what help, the Mary of the Bible and the Mary of Roman Catholicism are as far apart as the missionary “Patricius” of Britain and the "St. Patrick" of the Irish Republican Army.

Growing up in St Patrick’s parish, I loved this post. LOL

But I never thought any of the latter Bible translators were actually trying to help the Pope out with his bunco!

[Paul Vusik]

Originally Posted by Bible-believer

Here is another one:

Matt. 1:25 KJV
And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

NASV, RV, ...
RV: And he did not know her until she bore a son. And he called His name Jesus.
NASV: but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he named Him Jesus.


Why the NASV has removed the word “firstborn” from Matthew 1:25, we may strongly suspect "somebody" of trying to help the Pope out with his bunco about “the perpetual virginity of Mary” (and Joseph!).

Yet no matter how and what help, the Mary of the Bible and the Mary of Roman Catholicism are as far apart as the missionary “Patricius” of Britain and the "St. Patrick" of the Irish Republican Army.

Bible-believer,

The truth is that all new Bible translations are currently doing this to achieve one Bible version that will be approved by all groups and denominations. It’s been going on for 60 years. They slowly insert Catholic doctrines into a text.
And here is another example of that


James 5:16
King James Version

16. Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.

RV
16. Therefore confess your sins to one another and pray for one another that you may be healed. The petition of a righteous man avails much in its working.


As far as I’m concerned, the only being that I would confess my sins to, is God himself. No man! That’s another slow introduction of these heresies into regular Bible by the WBS to get everyone used to these practices and eventually the take over to one religion.

[Bible-believer]

Originally Posted by Paul Vusik

Bible-believer,

The truth is that all new Bible translations are currently doing this to achieve one Bible version that will be approved by all groups and denominations. It’s been going on for 60 years. They slowly insert Catholic doctrines into a text.
And here is another example of that


James 5:16
King James Version

16. Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.

RV
16. Therefore confess your sins to one another and pray for one another that you may be healed. The petition of a righteous man avails much in its working.


As far as I’m concerned, the only being that I would confess my sins to, is God himself. No man! That’s another slow introduction of these heresies into regular Bible by the WBS to get everyone used to these practices and eventually the take over to one religion.

Indeed! All so-called "new translations" have the puppetmaster， Roman Catholics， behind them.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Paul Vusik

The truth is that all new Bible translations are currently doing this to achieve one Bible version that will be approved by all groups and denominations. It’s been going on for 60 years. They slowly insert Catholic doctrines into a text.
And here is another example of that

James 5:16
King James Version: Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed.

RecV: Therefore confess your sins to one another and pray for one another that you may be healed.

As far as I’m concerned, the only being that I would confess my sins to, is God himself. No man! That’s another slow introduction of these heresies into regular Bible by the WBS to get everyone used to these practices and eventually the take over to one religion.

In a similar vein, John 20.23 has always troubled me, being a former Catholic, and I actually think the KJV is better on this verse.

Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.

This horrible heresy surrounding the forgiveness of sins found only in the confessional was used by Rome to manipulate kings and extract fortunes.