INTRODUCTION Herein we present:
THE DILEMMA Today, there are two kinds of Christians: those that care deeply about God speaking to them through their Bible, and those who could care less. The latter in fact, seldom if ever, open any Bible they may possess, or if they do, are only looking for a specific application. The question of the hour for those that care deeply about God speaking to them through God's Word is: Which Bible is best? Unfortunately, the honest answer is the "best" does not exist in any language but original, Koine Greek. So where does that leave those who cannot or do not have the time to learn Koine Greek? Also, another question exists as to which version in the language that I speak should I use? And what about all those scholars claiming their version is the best because of blah, blah, blah? (That includes us, at this website.) |
A VIEWPOINT The various studies in this website have presented you with a lot of evidence
to deal with in choosing the "best" version in the language that you
speak. Even though we have addressed which line of scriptures to ignore
(Hort and Westcott and its derivatives) and which line of scriptures to
use (Majority Text versions), there are still a lot of issues left. There is no easy way to say this but to say that unless you learn Koine Greek, including its grammar, not just dictionary definitions, you will never truly grasp the fullness of God's Word by simply reading it in your translation alone. (More about this in a moment, and do not be disappointed! There is help.) However, it is obvious that in the 2nd century, believers in Antioch, having sent disciples all over the world to preach the gospel, make more disciples and plant churches, found there there was a need to distribute God's Word in other languages, seeing as how Greek, while used by even the Romans, Egyptians and others, was still not used everywhere. So they began translating into other languages, such as the Coptic (125 AD), original Latin (157 AD), and Aramaic (157 AD) as well as others in the years that followed. None of the early translations had any uniquely "Catholic" doctrinal influence from the church at Rome, but were faithful to the original Koine Greek versions. Today, there are well over 200 languages of the world the Bible has been translated into. WARNING: There has always been the traditional Received Text Greek New Testament, such at Stephanus of 1550. Today, liberal Christian scholars are now starting to call their uniquely Catholic, Arian and Gnostic Greek new testaments the "Received Text Greek New Testament", stealing the name to deceive believers into using translations based on this! They really are that evil, brothers and sisters. Furthermore, for those that want to do a little casual research on their modern translation, they are no longer using terms like "majority text", "traditional text", etc, that is, they are hiding the fact that it even exists, though it is used by hundreds of millions of truly faithful believers. So they now are dictating what it is they want you to believe and what doctrine you are supposed to follow based on translations based on their selections of text. By the way, producing false Greek texts and translations based on the same is the "unforgivable sin", because to change the Word of God is to blaspheme the Holy Ghost, since the Spirit of God inspired the Apostles in the first place. (Mathew 12:31 "Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men." Also see Mark 3:29 and Luke 12:10) DEALING WITH IT What is a Christian to do that is not able to learn the Koine Greek, what do Christians do in practical terms with the translation being used by them? For the answer, we turn to the scripture itself: 1 JOHN 2:27 "But the anointing which you all have received of him resides in you all, and you all need not that any one teach any of you: but as the same anointing teaches you all about all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it has taught you all, you all shall reside in him." Comments:
"But the anointing which you all have received {actively, at any time} of him resides {at any present time} in you all, and you all need not {at any present time} that any one teach {repeatedly} any of you: but as the same anointing teaches {at any present time} you all about all things, and is {at any present time} truth, and is {at any present time} no lie , and even as it has taught {actively, at any time} you all, you all shall reside {in any future time} in him." Comments:
THE FACTS ARE ... Despite the fact that you now know or already knew the Holy Spirit is your teacher and even final authority, we all still have to deal with some real facts about translations. This includes, but is not limited to:
Formal Gender Formal gender is not just a form that is "romantic" or some other such notion, but represents a convenient way, with 1-2 letter suffixes, to provide a typically long list of traits (adjectives) associated with a noun, and having almost nothing to do with natural gender (male or female). For example, "the church" is in the feminine because it is corporate, diverse, inclusive, intangible (because it is Spirit led), and a "nourisher", and this is true, even if by chance, all the members were only male. Likewise, each member of the church, in the Greek are in the masculine, which includes traits such as individual, exclusive, tangible, a "seeder" and even if the members were only female. But why gender? Why not just list the traits as adjectives with each and every noun? Well:
Now, could not English readers just learn about all the formal genders for each noun? Sure they can, but does anyone have all that much time on their hands? Also, in formal gender, nouns that default to one gender can be altered with additional letters to actually change gender or can be used in another gender context when a preceding adjective has a different gender. For example, in John 7:39, "the" in the feminine, precedes "Ghost" in the neuter. By doing this, the ordinarily neuter "spirit" is elevated into the feminine domain, and thus now has characteristics such as corporate, diverse, broad, inclusive and a nourisher, to name a few traits. And how many know that "brothers" (brethren), while a formal masculine in Greek, includes females? It is only when it represents natural gender does it mean a male brother or a female sister. In fact, this is one of the "political" arguments made by some against the use of gender in favor of gender-neutral language. The fault, however, is not with formal gender, but mistaking formal gender (merely a set of traits) for natural gender (male/female) and not understanding the facts about formal gender. In fact, this is not a problem in many languages that have both formal and natural gender in their language. It is mainly a problem in English. So is gender-neutral better? Probably, both "yes" and "no" is correct. Since English mistakes formal gender for natural gender, it makes sense to change it. However, with gender notations present in a given translation, and with some who are trying to comprehend what the scriptures in the underlying Greek says, they will get a better understanding, so long as they take the time to think in formal gender, whenever in a texts it is obvious natural gender does not apply. For example, to describe God as "mother/father" is foolish, since it actually still denotes natural gender, just combined as male/female natural gender, which is not God at all. The reason for God to be in the masculine is not that He has male genitalia, but that He has a set of traits associated with the glory that is God, such as the masculine traits of "focused, central, individual, exclusive, consonant, the authority, a seeder, and more. In other words, to interpret "God the Father" as a male is foolish, but worse, to make Him gender-neutral is to simply ignore what all the other formal gender languages use for God, and it ignores how much more accurate it is to have the formal gender, so long as we, in the Spirit, understand the reason we give God a masculine gender. In fact, to have a gender neutral God is to reject God, because it is to reject his authority. The list is endless with respect to the other gender-ized nouns. But it begs a deeper question, and that is, why change God's Word and why not translate it properly? What gives anyone the right to change it, and if I were God, I would not be happy with people changing my written Word. In fact, as God, I might consider it as blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, an unforgivable sin. Do you know that while the Son and the Father are in the masculine, that the Spirit is in the neuter? So if we make God to be in the neuter (with "father/mother") we now have actually twisted the Scriptures, and actually complicated the nature of God, an unintended consequence. Another reason for maintaining formal gender in English, even if it does not actually exist, is the inspiration of the scriptures. The inspired writers did not write the "church" in the feminine or each "member" in the masculine because of sexism of some kind, but because of the inspiration of God. Why move further away from what is inspired by God to what is "politically correct?" Is it not better to move away from "politically correct" to what God inspired? (Did anyone get God's permission to change gender in the Word?) If anything, in the Bible at least, we should use formal gender in English, and even denote it in glossaries, and denote it in the text when it refers to natural gender, or when it refers to formal gender. Perhaps "f" and "m" and "n" (neuter) could be suffixed as in "church-f" and "member-m" and "Spirit-n" throughout the text, but when the gender is natural, just leave it "as is" without a suffix, such as "he went into her house," and "The Spirit-n is willing, but he ignored the Father's-m leading." (Note the presence and absence of the endings.) Furthermore, the Greek has masculine, feminine and neuter, while the Hebrew does not have neuter, only masculine and feminine. So that makes "neutering" texts of the Old Testament impossible, and to be faithful to the Word of God, God cannot even be in the neuter in the Hebrew, or a translation, for that matter. Word Emphatic Order If your translation does provide underlining, double-underlining, bold, etc, to denote emphatic word ordering from the underlying Greek, then you should find one that does. But, you likely will never find such a Bible !!! Could it be done? Of course. Why has it not been done? Perhaps all translators of the last 500 years have never cared about precise interpretation? The simple answer is, that in the Greek underlying was not needed, since emphatic, free-form, word ordering is used. And when translated into other languages, without emphatic word ordering, attempts were made to just keep the word order, but only to some degree. Today's modern translations are less interested in emphasis and just making the word order fit standard grammar rules of the language being translated into. They are more into formality than into interpretation by the reader. So no matter what your translation is, without emphatic word ordering, or without some system of underlines, double-underlines, bold, etc, your translation lacks what it takes to tell you what is really important in the text. (This includes the KJV.) (However, once again, the Holy Spirit can tell you what is emphatic, if you listen, that is.) Verb Tenses, Moods, Voice In English, as in other languages, Greek verbs are often accurately translated, but not all of the time. For example, in English we say, "The horse ran past the house at 3 o'clock" and we also say, "The river ran past the house at 3 o'clock." The Greek would scratch his or her head over the English word "ran", because these two sentences would not make sense with one "ran". You see, in the Greek, the verb for "ran" with respect to the horse would be different through conjugation, that is, "ran-at-that-moment," and the verb for "ran" with respect to the river would mean "ran-continuously," also via conjugation. But let us turn to serious interpretation. Let us look at 1 John 5:13: These
things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son
of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God. (Jubilee 2000 version) There are three parts to this verse. If your translation only has two, it is because the early Catholics tore it out of all the sources they could get their hands on, and the loss of the third part propagated to the Hort and Westcott GNT, and thus to modern versions. Their motive was to stop anyone from thinking that eternal life cannot be lost, which is exactly what this verse teaches. Our forensics evidence shows that the last part (in blue) was in the original text that John wrote. There are quotations from early church leaders, some early manuscripts, and grammatical evidence that the third part was always there. Again, the church at Rome tore the last part out. So, looking at this verse in English we can observe:
John writes: to all that continuously believe on the name of the Son of God: if they continuously believe on the name of the Son of God, they will know continuously that they have eternal life, at any present time, and then if they know continuously that they have eternal life, at any present time, then they will continuously believe on the name of the Son God [name of the Son of God = Jesus Christ ] This makes it absolutely clear that a believer, once a believer, is a continuous believer, knowing he/she always has eternal life, at any present time and because of that knowledge he/she is compelled to be a continuous believer. But wait, how can anyone be a continuous believer? After all, even Peter and Thomas and others, and even us on our bad days, seem to be filled with unbelief. However, the Greek is crystal clear that we have continuous belief and continuous knowledge of having eternal life, leading back to having continuous belief. The answer to this dilemma is to read this: ROMANS 7:25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin. ROMANS 8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death. "Mind" and "flesh" and "Spirit" are the operative words here. Together, it means continuous belief is possible only because the "Spirit of the life in Christ Jesus" in me, has caused my mind to continuously believe, while my "flesh" does whatever it might happen to do, including having disbelief from time to time. Now John is not writing to unbelievers, but to those who the Spirit resides in. It is the Spirit then that actually causes continuous faith in Christ, after our initial belief and surrender to Him. So any time we have a "lack of faith", it is only our flesh "acting out". We never lose the Spirit's influence to control our faith in our "mind", which is under the control of the "Spirit of the life in Christ Jesus." While we might fail in the flesh, the Spirit can never fail in our "mind', because the Spirit is God Himself in us, in a manner of speaking, and God cannot fail, so our faith will not fail either. So now that you have seen how powerful the underlying Greek can be if read as Greek, you still have two choices (1) learn the Greek and/or (2) depend on the Spirit to "teach you all things." Second person, singular and plural pronouns Virtually every language of the word has maintained, as contemporary, their second person, singular and plural pronouns. English is virtually the only exception. Without these being used in a translation, our forensic examination indicates that there is the potential for over 15,000 times a text in English could be ambiguous to the reader. We are of course talking about words like "thee, thou, thine, thy, ye" etc. But before you get defensive about using modern words instead, please take a moment please to read on. Let us look at two of the verses of the 15,000+ cases. If John 3:7, if your translation reads like this: "Marvel not that I say to you, you must be born again." you must conclude, that since Jesus was talking with Nicodemus alone, that Nicodemus is the only one in the world who must be born again, the rest must get to Heaven some other way. (You concluded that "you" is singular because that is the rule in English to consider in this context.) Now when we read it in the Authorized KJV, or the Jubilee 2000, or the 21st Century KJV and in a few others, we read: Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. Because we know that "thee" is singular and "ye" is plural, we know Jesus is talking to Nicodemus only, but telling Nicodemus the whole world, in effect, "must be born again." This begs the question, why cannot a modern update read like this?: Marvel not that I said unto you, all must be born again. I
mean how hard is that? Instead, some actually still use "you" in place
of "all" and put in the footnotes that the first "you" is singular and
that the second "you" is plural. Why is someone relegating the
inspired Word of God to a footnote? (It baffles us.) And BTW, the underlying Greek concurs, that the first "you" is singular, and the second one plural. Hence, the KJV, and others, are more accurate than many modern translations, and actually improve understanding a context over many modern translations. OK, here is one more from Galatians 6:1. Suppose your translation is worded something like this: Brothers and sisters, if someone in your
group does something wrong, you who are spiritual should go to that
person and gently help make him right again. But be careful, because you
might be tempted to sin, too. Now
then, is the first "you" singular or plural? What about the second
"you?" Maybe they are both plural or both singular? How do you
know? Well the underlying Greek makes it clear that the first
"you" is
plural and the last "you" is singular, but following standard English
grammar
rules, deciding if "you" is singular or plural is impossible. Now here it is in the Jubilee 2000: "Brethren, if anyone is
overtaken in a fault, ye who are spiritual restore such a one in the
spirit of meekness, considering thyself lest thou also be tempted." In
this English form, "ye" is always plural and "thyself" is singular,
corresponding to the underlying Greek. Hence, the Jubilee 2000 is not
ambiguous. (And BTW, "you" is also used in old English (KJV and others), but it is always plural, never singular!) Now
the significance of this text has to do with church doctrine and spiritual health.
You see, the plural "ye" indicates that multiple spiritual
persons should
be involved in an "overtaken" believer's restoration to bring that person back to good spiritual
health, while the singular "thyself" clearly says each individual is
personally
accountable for their own well-being, avoiding being "sucked into"
the
same temptation that caused this person to be "overtaken" in the first place. In essence, believers should not "go-it-alone" if possible in helping the "overtaken" person, but also cannot blame the other spiritual persons if they get "sucked in" but must take care of their own spiritual health, seeing that they are supposed to be mature believers in Christ. These
are but two examples out of 15,000+ possibilities. So if a contemporary translation clarifies singular and plural, great. If it does not, it has, at best, lazy translators, and at worst, creators of false doctrines. And in fact, by our count, has the potential for 15,000+ ambiguities when 2nd person, singular/plural pronouns are not clarified. OK, to be fair, most cases are not ambiguous. It is more like about a thousand+ ambiguities, but still that is a lot of ambiguities! How is that "easier to read"? How is that "easier to understand?" While it is noted that the Authorized KJV and about ten other English versions use/used the older second person, singular and plural pronouns, we do necessarily endorse the Authorized KJV. Now the Authorized KJV is not alone in English, as there is the 21st Century KJV (less apocrypha) and the Jubilee 2000. Variants Variants
occur in a few dozen places in the Majority texts' collations. This
creates an air of discomfort with respect to the belief in the preservation
of God's Word in the Greek.
We at this website have investigated
the variants impacting the Majority text's collations, and consistently
find that, while the variants cannot be dismissed "out of hand"
and know they are somewhat troubling, the more we study, the more we
find resolutions to the variants. In any case, there are no
doctrines truly affected by the small number of variants in the
Majority texts (unlike the source Greek texts for Hort and Westcott,
with thousands of variants and many doctrines affected). However, some meanings do change with the use of different genders, verb tenses, moods, voice, and with different emphatic word ordering. What we are discovering, as we resolve more and more variants, that they are the remnants of the fight over the preservation of the scripture, in particular, continued remnants of the attempt by the Catholics, Arian and Gnostics to alter the texts, and as more manuscript evidence is found, more and more variants are being resolved by virtue of resolving which are faithful and which are not. Now
there are two kinds of variants: (1) same verse, slight word
differences and (2) disharmony between two or more accounts in the gospels, for example. Disharmony
is resolved easily by recognizing that various accounts are simply woven
together to form a more precise account. They are not accounts that are not in
harmony, but only appear to be. (See Handling Contradictions.)
Now with respect to textual variants, we now looked at ...
What did Christians have before 1500s? Answer:
At this point, and this is still a "work in progress," we think so far our analysis is most accurate, mainly because of unique "signatures" in the Greek that appear to be more inspired, than merely intellectual. By inspired, we do not mean Stephanus was inspired necessarily, but that the text itself appears to be inspired. In fact, Stephanus seems to run against the others some of the time, but in deeper analysis, we find "gems" of spiritual truths not always found in Beza or Scrivener, that we find in Stephanus, and especially not in Hort and Westcott, which we consider to be a huge corruption of the Greek New Testament. One example of Stephanus over the others occurs in Luke 22:42, where all others put the Greek word for "remove" in the imperative, but Stephanus puts this verb in the infinitive, and at first glance, seems to contradict even himself in his Matthew's and Mark's account of the same text where he puts similar verbs in the imperative. After all, how could Jesus pray in the imperative in two accounts, but then pray in the infinitive in Luke's account, especially when all others also put Luke's account in the imperative? It looks to be a simple spelling error on the part of Stephanus, or some other such oversight, at least at first glance. However, upon closer examination, the infinitive verb is used in association with another action or activity, and in the Luke 22:42 account it is in association with God's "willingness" to remove the cup from Jesus. So grammatically, it fits, even though the imperative would not be that wrong to use. We also find that the accounts of Matthew and Mark are so worded that the infinitive verb would not be so fitting, and accordingly, Stephanus has the "remove" verb in these other accounts in the imperative. We must also note, that in the account of Jesus praying before His arrest, that Matthew and Mark write about Jesus praying three separate times, while Luke only writes about two of the three, and so it is not absolutely certain whether Luke is speaking of the first two of the three, the last two of the three, or for that matter, possibly, but not likely, the first and last of the three separate prayer times. This also may be a factor in Stephanus using the infinitive over the imperative. Then, some will note that, putting aside that Luke only accounts for two prayers and Matthew and Mark three, there are still other apparent contradictions in the three texts. We handle this in depth in "Handling Contradictions" but suffice it to say, when one "weaves" the three accounts together, they are complementary accounts, that is, one account fills in details the other does not and vice versa, and simply "weaving" them together eliminates the apparent contradictions. After all, if Jesus prayed each time of the three times, for say 15 minutes each time, would not he said a not more things? If so, then Matthew, Mark and Luke could very well have written down different things, simply because Jesus prayed for so long that a contradiction is in appearance only, not in fact, be each writer deciding what was important to write down, and thus simply different portions of each 15 minutes of praying. The "weave" principle comes to play here because Jesus apparently in two accounts prayed in the imperative, but in Luke's account prayed in the infinitive, so we think each of the three prayers was not a single sentence, per se, but more than likely many sentences in each prayer session, so Luke recorded one of the sentences, while Matthew and Mark another, and so in one sentence Jesus prayed in the imperative, but in a different sentence in the infinitive. In fact, the prayers are not precisely worded the same, and so suggest, prayers with multiple sentences, and the authors Matthew, Mark and Luke writing down only one of the many sentences, from each of the three prayer sessions. If all of this is true, and it seems so by reason of the "weave" principle, then Stephanus is out ahead of all the others, because he did not fall into the temptation to "harmonize" but rather, seems to have faithfully preserved the infinitive tense/mood for "remove" against all the others with respect to Luke 22:42. Did he do this through his own emendation, or from some Greek source? No one knows for sure. Perhaps the others decided to harmonize the infinitive verb and make it imperative, but not Stephanus? Now for another quick Stephanus "gem" (out of the many that show he is the best), we look at Acts 21:4, where Stephanus alone (in the Greek) uses the article "the" in the masculine to describe "the disciples" that Paul found. This could have been done in the feminine (kind of like "church" is in the feminine). However, the masculine was used by Stephanus in recognition the disciples mentioned here were "exclusive" (masc) disciples, not "inclusive" (fem) of all disciples. And since masculine indicates the trait of "exclusive" these were no ordinary disciples. (They were Christ's disciples.) But what if Stephanus was wrong, and these disciples were just any group of disciples. How do we know? Well, the context provides the answer, for we read in the same verse that these disciples, via the Holy Spirit's inspiration, spoke to Paul to give him some guidance. So indeed, these were "exclusive" disciples of Christ, not just some church members, or general disciples (which would be in the feminine). Some will say these are but two cases, but we have examined all 190 cases of Stephanus versus Scrivener variants and found not one case where Scrivener can be argued the better of the two. Note that we have ignored breathing marks and differences with no doctrinal significance. Also, it appears the variant spelling differences are more likely that Scrivener was influenced by some Medieval Greek, in lieu of the pure Koine Greek Stephanus was using. Perhaps Scrivener "peeked" at the work Hort and Westcott were doing and used a few of their texts? We cannot say for sure, but the forensics say Scrivener did not get the Medieval spellings from the Koine Greek spelling, so all that is left as a source is the texts of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, that Hort and Westcott were using, which contain many Medieval Greek spellings (4th-5th century). Thus Scrivener is borderline dubious, in our opinion. |
We do not like the idea of an "only-ism" for any Bible translation, but at the same time reject almost all contemporary versions, including many in other languages of the world, because we know for certain that they are derived in whole or in part from the Hort and Westcott, uniquely Catholic, Arian and Gnostic accommodating Greek New Testament, and so we deem them "unfaithful" translations. Contemporary publishers, directly or indirectly, acknowledge the root GNT of their translations 1s Hort and Westcott (or derivatives such as SBL), so it is not a matter of our opinion, but their own words to verify the Greek origin as being Hort and Westcott (accommodating uniquely Catholic, Arian and Gnostic doctrines). With respect to "unfaithful" in The Hort and Westcott version also runs afoul of our research with respect to using the Greek Old Testament, known as the Septuagint. The reasons are many, and lengthy, but suffice it to say that Hort and Westcott, two "handlers" of these texts, are considered by us as "unfaithful", therefore a product of their efforts that uses the Septuagint, is also "unfaithful". The Old Testament that is "faithful" from our own research is the Masoretic Text of about the 6-7th century, mainly because it is consistent with the Majority Greek New Testament texts with respect to doctrine, cross referencing, quotations, and seems to be Spirit guided. At this point we advise the reader to turn to the Lord in sincere prayer and ask Him to lead you to a "faithful" translation. Our issue with providing specific recommendations is that no translation outside of the original Koine Greek text, is nearly so good as that text. We already detailed this with respect to the issues of inaccurate and incomplete translation, so how can one make such a recommendation as "faithful" with respect to any particular translation? One can only perhaps say "preferred" or even "faithful" and to that we prefer most all translations that are derived from the Majority texts. For a list, see this link. For further consideration, see this table, which shows we reject all but a few modern versions. See RT vs HW. As a further aid, a Bible with a rich set of cross references can help to gain understanding. As an additional set of facts one should consider Conjectures Versus Truth. JUBILEE 2000 vs NIV To compare all English versions against each other is a massive effort. However, we did compare the Jubilee 2000 (a contemporary Received Text version) to the NIV (a Hort and Westcott version) and we found the following statistics:
In our cursory study of all other contemporary English versions, except for the Jubilee 2000 and the 21st Century KJV, we found that like the NIV, there are differences in thousands of verses, all which appear to be only doctrinal verses and which also accommodate uniquely Catholic, Arian and Gnostic doctrines. It is our educated opinion, that the NRSV accommodates uniquely Catholic, Arian and Gnostic doctrines more than all the other versions, or about 3000 verses. The NKJV does the least accommodation, with only several hundred verses. All other contemporary English versions fall somewhere in between, apparently based on the choices of what differences each respective editing committee chose. Note that the Jubilee 2000 differs in only a few verses when compared to the Authorized KJV. The Jubilee 2000 is based purely on the Stephanus GNT, while the Authorized KJV appears to have some emendation, none of which seems to effect doctrine. ATTENTION: This large a number of differences between the Stephanus based translations and the Hort and Westcott based translations contradicts the often heard statement "There are only a few minor differences." Those that promote this statement are either uninformed or liars, and if liars, it is likely because they want the uniquely Catholic, aria and Gnostic doctrinal accommodations. HERE IS AN INTERESTING THOUGHT. If a translation is the "best" but still not perfect because it has not been perfectly translated from the Greek, but two or more believers, who are truly in the Lord, pray and then discover through the Spirit's leading what the underlying truths are hidden in the Greek, then it proves to those believers the Spirit indeed leads to overcome translation weaknesses. If this does not happen, then the translation is dubious at best, heresy as worst, at least in appearance. A LIST OF TRANSLATIONS This table shows which translations are faithful to the traditional Received Text Greek New Testament and those that are based on the uniquely Catholic, Arian and Gnostic Greek Alexandrian texts. Modern Translations' Table Faithful Stephanus Received Test Versions 2019, 2020, 2021, 2023 ::: www.millpark.org All Rights Reserved |