How The Modern Translations Attack the Deity of Jesus Christ by Dr. Douglas D. Stauffer

[miiitymous]

The girls sounded good!

[1struthalways]

God said He would have a famine...and there is for His true word so many read the preverted versions...I used to get in such arguements that to rely on the preverted versions is base your salvation on shifting sand with my ex fiancee....And to deny He would preserve one true word is denying the omnipotence who is God...just my opinion to all...

[sweettina2]

@1struthalways Right on! Great video, thank you, sharing.

[1struthalways]

@riverpies123 It goes far deeper than that.

[emjmnc]

Dear Berean... Would you be interested in a public debate? I believe the NIV, NASB, HCSB, and NET are good Bible translations. I would love for an audience to be able to hear both sides presented.

[superjam18]

the New World Translation is just outright heresy..it doesnt even try to be slick

[saudertim1]

If you had the original KJV you could not read it. It has been updated several times since it was printed.

The new NIV 2010 and 2011 is very accurate but since you don't understand biblical literature and translation how can you evaluate anything?

You know nothing about the Greek text as your statements show. Too bad people who know less believe you...

[BereanBeacon1]

@saudertim1 Continued - "With the exception of typographical errors and changes required by the process of orthography [spelling] in the English language, the text of our present Bibles remains unchanged, and without variations from the original copy as left by the translators. (Report of the Committee on Versions to the Board of Managers of the American Bible Society, 1852, pp. 7,11 as cited by George T. Crabb)

[1struthalways]

@BereanBeacon1..God said there would be a famine for His word...indeed there is His true unperverted word.

[BereanBeacon1]

@saudertim1 There are three changes to the KJV since 1611.

1. 1612: Typography ( from Gothic to Roman type).

2. 1629 & 1638: Correction of typographical errors.

3. 1762 & 1769: Standardization of spelling. The 'Board of Managers' of the American Bible Society in 1852 determined that "The English Bible as left by the translators has come down to us unaltered in respect to its text..."

[1struthalways]

@BereanBeacon1 Not sure of your sources but there are many serious errors in the NKJ I read it but I have marked the irritations for the changes out and translated them correctly.

[BereanBeacon1]

@saudertim1 Brief overview: The NIV is missing 64,000 words, in 2008 went back to a KJV reading and probably in 2010 and 2011 as well. As for the Greek used in the NIV, it was invented by Wescott and Hort, two enemies of God. 98% of the exsiting manuscripts agree with the KJV and about 2% with all the modern translations including your NIV. We have all the documentation if interested.

[1struthalways]

@BereanBeacon1 Indeed!

[1struthalways]

@BereanBeacon1 That is interesting what are your sources I have not found that yet? Though it is credible.

[docdoug4]

@RationalEnquirer This DVD may spend 20 seconds talking about these two infidels and their beliefs so I certainly would not think that the entire Bible Believing position depends on the Christology of W&H. It matters what the Bible says and what the Author (God) intended for it to say. I can say that I hold to one authority...how many do those who proclaim the modern versions or original languages have? None, but their own opinions or those who have no lasting or final authority.

[NateWardawg]

Thanks Brother Doug, I love the way you present this serious issue in a loving, yet straight forward way. I appreciate you brother and may God continue to bless your ministry :)

[docdoug4]

@NateWardawg Thanks Nate...be sure to check out my main website at bibledoug com for all of my materials. I believe it is critical to "speak the truth in love."

[docdoug4]

@RationalEnquirer And what do you base your opinion on? I wrote a chapter on Westcott and Hort in my book--One Book Stands Alone. In the video I refer to a footnote on page 118 in the American Standard Version of 1901 that plainly states that Jesus Christ is a CREATED BEING. Did those translators of the early versions believe in the deity of Christ. No! You can't argue with facts...well, you can, but debunk the truth before you say that it is an unfounded premise. Proof is truth!

[1struthalways]

@docdoug If Christ was a created being how could man kind lay there sins on a man, only God can bear our sins...never mind what it says about any one who denies that God came in the flesh is the anti Christ.

[bibledoug]

@RationalEnquirer Your point "missed" was whether men should translate to promote the deity of Christ or what the writer intended? Since the Textus Receptus does in fact elevate the deity of Christ, then the translators who used this uncorrupted text did that very thing in the King James. The modern versions use a corrupted text created by two infidels who did not believe in the deity of Christ--Westcott and Hort. By their fruits ye shall know them...wolves in sheep's clothing!

[docdoug4]

@RationalEnquirer No, men should translate what God inspired, unlike the modern versions who do not do that. Figure it out...how do you copyright 150 different versions of the Bible in English? Each copyright must be a derivitive work--a new work, unlike the predecessors. Hummm...did the Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic really say the same thing 150 different ways in English. Get real...only One Book Stands Alone and it is the King James Bible.

[Drynn]

because it is not the law of man where you don't have to understand the law, if you don't understand you are ignorant and in a way innocent. why would christeins want an idiot preaching have assed to someone who might be more intelligent and able to mislead them.

keep the bible what it is, it's not a bedtime story so don't dumb it down.

you're only making it easier for the enemy to attack us.

[Drynn]

translation is one thing but i'm pretty sure it said in it if one was to change what is written he would recive the wrath of god. i agree with making the translation into the real meaning of the words written rather then making it understandable,

[docdoug4]

Dear Funeral: Where does the Bible mention the spiritual gift that supports a person giving his life to "piecing together hundreds of disparate ancient manuscripts attempting to translate them." The notion that you cannot know spiritual things unless you spend your life immersed in a dead language (Koine Greek) and/or another which is spoken only in Jerusalem and among the Rabbi's of the Synagogues of the world is just a lot of prideful thinking.

[Fuinernel]

To write off attempts to do real textual criticism as updating the language is grievously misleading, and a misrepresentation of modern scholarship. Disregarding it by saying, "Da-dada-da" is an insult to people who work and study their entire lives in order to understand ancient languages, piece together hundreds of disparate ancient manuscripts, attempt to translate them, and meticulously include footnotes in order to explain subtle qualities of the original language.

[docdoug4]

@Fuinernel Dear Funeral:The Bible says that knowledge puffeth up. The Bible says nothing about learning the "subtle qualities of the original languages." You and others like you are advocating the establishment of a "priestly class" (or maybe a Protestant Pope) that studies the "ancient" languages so the dumb lay people can come to him to find out what the words that God actually gave for man to study himself (2 Timothy 2:15 in the King James only).

[ellerzoo]

I have compared the versions verse by verse. I don't know Greek, but I know God. I believe by faith the the King James Version of the Bible is the perfect Word of God. If there were no perfect Bible, there would be no hope for mankind. I'm glad God has not left me to my own devices to pick and choose which parts of the Bible are right and which ones may be mistranslated. Thank you, Dr. Doug, for your research; it helps affirm my faith in the Holy Scriptures.

[docdoug4]

People acting like they know the Greek is deceptive. The TR (King James) has monogenes uios--"only begotten Son." The UBS Greek text (modern versions) has monogenes theos--does NOT mean "only unique GOD." It means "only begotten god" making Jesus a created being! Over 150 copyrighted versions all containing the same heresies is not a conspiracy theory; it is a ploy of Satan to destroy the faith of the believer and keep the lost lost. Doug Stauffer, PhD

[AgApE010]

Such ignorance. I would also like to note that the earlier manuscripts that the modern translations are translated out of are the only ones that call Jesus "monogenes theos", "only unique GOD" in John 1, where as the KJV's manuscripts call Jesus simply "only-begotten Son" in that passage. Oh, is that a contradiction to the crazy claims that modern translations "attack" the deity of Christ? I think it is. What will you do with it? Probably ignore and continue your conspiracy theory nonsense.

[8167433]

KJV 1611 The Only Way To Go,Satan Got a Hold On The Other Versions,Great teaching,God Bless You Brother