The Westminster Standards and the modern Bible versions
Do you hold to the Westminster Standards? Not if you read the NIV or the ESV or the NASB or the NLT or the ASV or the HCSB or any of the other modern versions based on the corrupt manuscripts. If you disdain to grant to God His Kingdom, His Power, and His Glory then you don't hold to the Westminster Standards (you don't even hold to the Word of God itself).
If your Bible (so-called Bible) has excised the second part of Matthew 6:13 then you don't hold to Question 196 in the Westminster Larger Catechism or Question 107 in the Westminster Shorter Catechism.
And if your version of God's Word based on the Satan-defiled Alexandrian manuscripts (satanicus/vaticanus) chooses to 'grant' to God some scare-brackets '[ ]' to contain the proclamation of his very Kingdom, Power, and Glory well, God bless your generous little soul. So generous to God you are! (No, sorry, pilgrim, scare-brackets don't count.)
The devil's attack on the Word of God began in the Garden.
It is progressive, continuing this very day. Come out of the devil's deception. Read the pure Word of God. (Here is a Reformed man who has seen the light.)
4 Comments:
Please do not take my comments as rude. I am simply trying to get your opinion on this matter.
What version should I read if I only speak Spanish or Korean. I know it is best to return to the original Hebrew/Greek texts to translate the holy word. Some of the newer translations are simply using manuscripts that scholars believe to be the true word. They are translated from the original manuscripts just as Spanish versions are translated.
I fully respect your opinion and it takes a strong person to post your views publicly. I have prayed about this issue many times and I personally have a peace that some of the newer translations are valid. I use the KJV in harmony with other versions to help me complete my bible studies.
Thank you for your blog site and may God richly bless you!
I would just say read a translation based on the manuscripts that contain the complete and true Word of God. Point #2 in this 13-point presentation puts it succinctly.
In English the choices are the King James Version and the New King James Version.
I read a New Revised Standard Version my first complete reading (not knowing anything about manuscript or translation issues). Yet I have to say I have have first come into contact with the Word of God - both reading and hearing - via the King James Version.
The 'heat' of this argument (from people on my side) really has to do with the progressive nature of the (what we would call) defiling of the Word of God. We see it as bad enough what is missing from the modern versions as it is, but we also know that once that manipulation gets started an inch becomes a mile in time (and actually in very little time).
Beeke, in that link above, makes the interesting point that even the new translation always have to compare themselves to the King James Version to get respectability. I.e. the KJV is the unspoken, implied standard.
I think ultimately a person will gravitate towards the best, truest translation in time if they are engaging the Bible in a real way to begin with...
Let's try to base our confessions on the Bible, and not the Bible on our confessions.
>Let's try to base our confessions on the Bible, and not the Bible on our confessions.
A typically slimy statement from a follower of the devil's (and the Vatican's) manuscripts.
The question on the table is what is the Bible, pilgrim. Your corrupt manuscripts 'discovered' in the 19th century by spiritualists and atheists, and the poisonous versions based on them, or the traditional text and accurate, literal translations based on it? If you don't say the latter it's the devil speaking through you. Through your hollow soul and heart of stone.
Post a Comment
<< Home