bibles that are NOT The Bible...

  • Thread starter Thread starter Judas_Thaddeus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

Judas_Thaddeus

Guest
Mormons have the Joseph Smith Translation which isn’t really a trans-
lation at all (as we all know), but a rewriting of the Bible with passages
changed and even chapters added, including passages added from the
Book of Mormon.

The Jehovah’s Witness have the New World Translation, also very
edited, breaking free from being subject to the Original Greek, ad-
ding words, such as “The Word was With God” to “The Word as
**A **god.”

Those are only two examples of bibles that are NOT The Bible, due
to their many radical changes. What other bibles out there can be
identified as “NOT Holy Scripture”?

Remember: ‘bible’ but not “Bible”
And NO, the Qur’an doesn’t count!
​
 
Depending on how strictly you want to define what is a “Bible”, there may be no Bible in English: only the Masoretic Hebrew and Byzantine Greek text being the actual Bible: or, there may be many Bibles in English, with all of them true insofar as they are accurately translated (to adapt one of the Mormon’s Articles of Faith), or mostly Bibles, with only works like the NWT or the “Inspired Version” being false and the word of Satan over against God: or the truth may be anywhere within that range, with some other “Inclusive Bibles” and “Five Gospels” and NRSVs being in there with the NWT, and only DRC, N/KJV, and NASB coming through unscathed.

It’s a question I’ve thought long of, and am still no closer to an answer: “when is a corrupted Bible no longer the Bible? when does it become the word of Satan, useful unto perdition, instead of the word of God, useful unto reproof in doctrine and manners of life, useful in knowledge of the world, and useful unto salvation?”
 
Seventh Day Adventists have a non-bible parading as a bible. It is called THE CLEAR WORD version. It’s even more slanted and biased than the NWT from Jehovah’s witnesses but its biases are different.
 
Don’t get me started on “Children’s Bibles” that focus on old-testement stories and nothing on salvation.

I read one when I was about 8 years old and it turned me off to the Christian faith for 20 years - thinking that scripture was nothing but cartoons.
 
All Protestants Bibles are not the Bible. Not only do they omit seven books and parts of two others, but they translate with an heretical bias, some more than others. Not to mention they are not authorized by the Church.

Unfortunately that means about 99% of what you’re going to find in stores and on the Internet. KJV, RSV, NIV, NEB, what have you.

Granted, there are now “Catholic editions” of some Protestant Bibles, but that’s another animal entirely.
 
Technically, one could say that any bible other than the original is not THE Bible, because in translation somethings can become more confusing or lose the intended meaning.
 
Well even they recognise something akin to a bible, the NWT may be a distorted translation but its sitll a bible with some core books and the even the mormons will say there is a difference between the bible and the book of mormon, even if they consider their own book of more authority.

Some might say the wisdom of solomon isn’t in the bible, but most Christians do happen to say it is in the bible.
 
bzkoss236 said:
Technically, one could say that any bible other than the original is not THE Bible, because in translation somethings can become more confusing or lose the intended meaning.
Click to expand...
No no, You’re being too broad, observe:
In the beginning the Word was, and the
Word was with God, and the Word was
a god.
NWT, John 1:1

In the beginning was the gospel
preached through the Son. And
the gospel was the word , and
the word was with the Son, and
the Son was with God, and the
Son was of God.
JST, John 1:1
These versions are radically different from most Bibles. Most Bibles will agree
on passages such as John 1:1, but some bibles intentionally change these
passages so as to support their kooky doctrines.

I’m not talking about subtle differences or translations, but ACTUALLY altered texts.
 
bzkoss236 said:
Technically, one could say that any bible other than the original is not THE Bible, because in translation somethings can become more confusing or lose the intended meaning.
Click to expand...
No no, observe:In the beginning the Word was, and the
Word was with God, and the Word was
a god.
NWT, John 1:1

In the beginning was the gospel
preached through the Son. And
the gospel was the word, and
the word was with the Son, and
the Son was with God, and the
Son was of God.
JST, John 1:1
 
=Ad Orientem;11128880]All Protestants Bibles are not the Bible. Not only do they omit seven books and parts of two others, but they translate with an heretical bias, some more than others. Not to mention they are not authorized by the Church.
Click to expand...
Luther’s translation must then be excluded since it has one more book than a Catholic Bible. And what about those devilish Orthodox Bibles that have more than that? :rolleyes:

Authorization from the Vatican doesn’t determine what is, and is not, scripture.

Jon
 
benjohnson said:
Don’t get me started on “Children’s Bibles” that focus on old-testement stories and nothing on salvation.

I read one when I was about 8 years old and it turned me off to the Christian faith for 20 years - thinking that scripture was nothing but cartoons.
Click to expand...
Amen to that!
 
JonNC said:
Luther’s translation must then be excluded since it has one more book than a Catholic Bible. And what about those devilish Orthodox Bibles that have more than that? :rolleyes:

Authorization from the Vatican doesn’t determine what is, and is not, scripture.

Jon
Click to expand...
That is true; it is authorisation by the church that does that. The church authorised 73 books as sacred scripture - a canon first listed in the late fourth century and finally defined and approved for the whole church in the 16th century. It was approved by the successor of saint Peter which is, of course, the normal course of events in the Catholic Church.
 
JonNC said:
Well, I should amend, and say that for Catholics in communion with the Bishop of Rome, the Vatican’s authorization is vital. Typically, I look to the LCMS. Orthodox to their Church leaders, etc.

Jon
Click to expand...
Yes… because Christ SO CLEARLY rested authority in the hands of the LCMS and its leaders. 🤷
 
Judas_Thaddeus said:
Those are only two examples of bibles that are NOT The Bible, due
to their many radical changes. What other bibles out there can be
identified as “NOT Holy Scripture”?
Click to expand...
Do Bibles containing the Johannine Comma count as The Bible?

How does genuine Bible verification take into account the 5,700 known ancient Greek New Testament texts, of which no two are identical?
 
gazelam said:
Do Bibles containing the Johannine Comma count as The Bible?
Click to expand...
Yes. Even if the archeological record were to show that it should not be there, it wouldn’t bother me in the slightest.
How does genuine Bible verification take into account the 5,700 known ancient Greek New Testament texts, of which no two are identical?
Click to expand...
Don’t know, don’t care except on an intellectual level as I do love the Anchor Bible, but as my pastor would say that the best bible is a warn bible in your hand.
 
JonNC said:
Well, I should amend, and say that for Catholics in communion with the Bishop of Rome, the Vatican’s authorization is vital. Typically, I look to the LCMS. Orthodox to their Church leaders, etc.

Jon
Click to expand...
Check out this: “A New New Testament”, published 2013, by some major denominational leaders who voted on 10 books to add to the “traditional” 27.

The Catholic Magisterium identified, but God was the creator, of the New Testament canon, which the above version opposes. It was the visible human agency through which God publicly communicated His will that: Books will be added to the existing scriptures. These specific 27 books were deemed to be inspired. Other books that were considered then, were deemed to be excluded from the New Testament. The New Testament canon was then CLOSED. The Magisterium continues to maintain the 27 book canon today.

All of these were decisions, not evolutions, made not by Christians in general, but by a single, specific identifiable part of the Church. God didn’t need any Magisterium, but He chose to use this means. The Magisterium’s canon likely did not represent the majority of Christians or the majority of scholars at that time. At present it’s likely a majority of scholars doesn’t accept the Magisterium’s 27 book canon, and in the future a majority of Christians won’t accept it. In the future it will be much harder for Christians to defend the traditional 27 book canon, if they reject the authority of the single, identifiable, currently visible human agency that closed the canon, and keeps it closed.

Unfortunately the people behind “A New New Testament” have far more media and academic clout than the Mormons ever had, when they tried to add books. In the future, those who hold to the traditional 27 will be regarded as quaint, like people today who believe the Earth is flat, based on the Bible. In the future, I predict Protestants will follow whatever canon their denomination or congregation chooses, and there will be many canons. Protestants who are unwilling to break with the traditional 27 books, will take a good, hard look at joining with the single human agency that communicated that canon in the first place, and keeps it closed today.
 
commenter said:
Check out this: “A New New Testament”, published 2013, by some major denominational leaders who voted on 10 books to add to the “traditional” 27.
Click to expand...
Looks like the “Jesus Seminar” is at it again.

After understanding who they are and how they operate, I certainly understand why heresy was traditionally combated as it was - though it’s application was flawed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top