Are modern Bible translations gnostic?

Why is it OK for the KJV to use "him" instead of "God" but not OK for the NIV, NASB, CSB, etc.?

http://www.raptureready.com/rr-kjvo.html

"For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form" ( Colossians 2:9 NIV).

"For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily" (Colossians 2:9 KJV).

If one applies Askjo's logic here, then the KJV must be "Gnostic" because the KJV refers to "him" instead of "Christ."

 

Askjo...if you don't have any facts, feel free to make some up.

Oh, wait. You already did.

 

Bingo!

Wait...I think I hear a response...

*crickets*

 

Nothing like a little "guilt by association" to condemn something, hunh?

Never mind as to whether it is particularly accurate.

If you choose to allude (as opposed to cite) 'Wiki' or 'Britannica' as your source, at least do us the service by citing whole sentences in context, please, not just a word or phrase or two that will 'bolster' your position.

There are some things that are entirely accurate in your above insinuations, namely the words I have emphasized in blue bold, in your post. The rest of this is either some varying mixture of truth and error, or just plain incorrect, in a couple of places.

And although many of these 'church fathers' certainly had more than their share of doctrinal error, to attempt to characterize Eusebius and Origen as Gnostics is ludicrous. To say they had been, early on, influenced somewhat by their teachings is likely accurate, but these two became among the early leaders, along with Irenaeus, Justin, and Tertullian in outspoken opposition to Gnosticism.

Sorry! I really have to agree with a couple of other posters that you really do not know what you are talking about, here.

But I have to admit, you do a great job in the 'Slash and Glue' Department.

Ed

 

It is generally thought that Paul corrected the written text he dictated to an amanuensis to say to what it should have. Does that make Paul a gnostic?

KJVOs such as Ruckman and Riplinger tamper with the text all the time with their heresies presented as fact called lies. Does that make them gnostics? I call them false teachers and heretics as they should be correctly called.

 

You are right that is the reason Paul wrote, " I Paul am writing this with my own hand."

In fact many groups have attempted to corrupt the Bible. The greatest of those are the KJVO groups.

Seriously the problem you attempt to use is a faulty standard of the TR which is simply not a perfect text but a conglomeration of texts promoted by the political group of the time. That is the reason it is called the received text. Received from where and from whom?

 

Indeed!

Act 18:24 And a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, and mighty in the scriptures, came to Ephesus.

Apollos MUST have been a Gnostic since he was born in Alexandria.

 

There is no word " Christ" in the verse of Colossians 2:9.

For in Him is correct there.

 

http://www.raptureready.com/rr-kjvo.html
Ridiculous statement in there.

Acts 4:25 - There is no " Holy Spirit" except 3 manuscripts as far as I know, A, B. Aleph.

I showed you how much erraneous the Aleph is. It contains hundreds of seriours errors in NT and cannot be considered as a normal Bible for the readers.

A, containing Apocrypha, retained by Orthodox, often disagree with B

B, retained by RCC which persecuted the Bible Believers, full of idolatry and goddess worship..

All the rest of the hundreds of mss agree with KJV.

 

No, Sir.
TR may not be perfect but the best compilation, Sir.

 

Granted about both examples. However, you cannot incontrovertibly prove that the TR is the best family of MSS (I prefer the TR myself but I cannot say without a doubt that it is the best family of MSS).

Regardless, 1Jn deals with the Gnostic issue. Every modern version has 1Jn. If modern versions are based on "Gnostic" texts, then 1Jn wouldn't be there as it contradicts the beliefs of Gnosticism.

As I quoted Jesus earlier, if Satan casts out Satan, his house will not stand. If 1Jn can be found in any version, then the person who uses the Protestant canon would be 1). forced to rip 1Jn from Scripture or 2). Admit Gnosticism is wrong.

 

Unfortunately none of us can say which is "the best compilation."

 

I have yet to find any references to "History" which state that Gnostics altered the actual Scriptures. It appears that they instead wrote their own "Scriptures"- much like the JW's who kept running into the truth every time they opened their revered KJV's, so they did the Gnostic (doctrinally speaking) thing.

All I can find is sources that "Claim" that the Gnostics altered the Scriptures. Now I can claim that the earth is flat until I'm blue in the face and I can prove that men in the past (that's "History") believed the same thing but it is NOT TRUE!

If you can find ONE CREDIBLE UNBIASED HISTORICAL source that gives EVIDENCE of Gnostic alterations, you might have a leg to stand on. But to cut and paste copies of cuttings and pastings only proves that KJVO is nothing more than a Gnostic (i.e.- "based on man's knowledge") interpretation of the preservation of the Scriptures.

 

Of course the earth actually is flat.

You can check it out, and this has to be right, since you can find it right there on the 'Net!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth_Society

http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm

http://www.oilcrisis.com/Bartlett/flatearth.htm

Matter of fact, I'd suggest that one might even be able to suggest this to George Noory, and he might ask a representative of this organization to be on his show!

I still would like to know, from the days when I lived on 'ocean-side' right on the beach on the 5th floor when I was a student at Bible College, in Hollywood, FL, how I was able to use binoculars to watch ships as they managed to 'rise up' in the water, as they appeared from over the horizon as they approached Port Everglades and Port of Dania, however.

Ed

 

Great post! :applause:

As I said much earlier, I know what Gnosticism is and speak publicly about it, and I used to have Gnostic type beliefs as a New Ager (Gnostic type thinking is very much part of the New Age) and I would definitely be "shouting from the rooftops" on my website if I thought I found Gnostic thinking in any standard Bible (I am not speaking of false bibles such as the JW bible and others).

After all, my website is about the New Age and the occult and I have a forum from which I can expose these things and warn people. Believe me, I would be the first one to do it! But in this case, there is nothing to expose. The MVs clearly and unambiguously teach the deity of Christ, his incarnation in the flesh, his atonement, his bodily resurrection - in short, all the essentials of the faith.

As somene else here said, the Gnostics wrote their own books and "gospels," mostly in the 2nd century.

 

Tertullian, Origen, Colwell and Metzger admitted that the Gnostic heretics tampered the NT text. You can't deny what they know about this alterations.

Please do not forget about the tree of KNOWLEDGE in the Book of Genesis where the LIE begun because the Satan ATTACKED the Scripture.

 

Askjo,

Can you post a source that states Origen and Tertullian claimed this?

Thanks!

Robb

 

Wow, Askjo...I had you pegged as deceived...I didn't know you were willing to outright lie about things.

BTW...for you to equate the Genesis account with versions of Scripture is stupid at best, and blasphemous at worst. Don't twist Scripture to make your points. That's not nice.

 

Maybe they said the Gnostics used parts of the gospels for their Gnostic Gospels, because they did. They copied some portions of the Gospels and inserted them in their writings. But this is not tampering with the actual word of God!

What is your source for the above? You can't just claim it without credible sources.

Sure, all enemies of God attack scripture. This is no evidence of what you are claiming.