Welcome!

By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.

SignUp Now!
  • Welcome to Talk Jesus Christian Forums

    Celebrating 20 Years!

    A bible based, Jesus Christ centered community.

    Register Log In

Bible Accuracy and Authenticity

B-A-C

Loyal
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
11,227
HOW WE GOT OUR BIBLE
by Charles C. Ryrie

The question of which books belong in the Bible is called the question of the canon. The word canon means rule or measuring rod, and in relation to the Bible it refers to
the collection of books that passed a test of authenticity and authority; it also means that those books are our rule of life. How was the collection made?
The Tests for Canonicity
First of all, it is important to remember that certain books were canonical even before any tests were put to them. That’s like saying some students are intelligent before any
tests are given to them. The tests only prove what is already intrinsically there. In the same way, neither the church nor councils made any book canonical or authentic; either the book was authentic or it was not when it was written. The church or its councils recognized and verified certain books as the Word of God, and in time those so recognized were collected together in what we now call the Bible.
What tests did the church apply?
(1) There was the test of the authority of the writer. In relation to the Old Testament, this meant the authority of the lawgiver or the prophet or the leader in Israel.
In relation to the New Testament, a book had to be written or backed by an apostle in order to be recognized. In other words, it had to have an apostolic signature or apostolic authorization. Peter, for instance, was the backer of Mark, and Paul of Luke.
(2) The books themselves should give some internal evidences of their unique character, as inspired and authoritative. The content should commend itself to the
reader as being different from an ordinary book in communicating the revelation of God.
(3) The verdict of the churches as to the canonical nature of the books was important. There was in reality surprising unanimity among the early churches as to which
books belonged in the inspired number. Although it is true that a few books were temporarily doubted by a minority, no book whose authenticity was doubted by any large number of churches was later accepted.
The Formation of the Canon
The canon of Scripture was, of course, being formed as each book was written, and it was complete when the last book was finished. When we speak of the “formation” of
the canon we actually mean the recognition of the canonical books by the church. This took time. Some assert that all the books of the Old Testament canon were collected and recognized by Ezra in the fifth century B.C. References by Josephus (A.D. 95) and in 2 Esdras 14 (A.D. 100) indicate the extent of the Old Testament canon as the thirty-nine books we know. The discussions by the teaching-house at Jamnia (A.D. 70—100) seemed to assume this existing canon. Our Lord delimited the extent of the canonical books of the Old Testament when He accused the scribes of being guilty of slaying all the prophets God had sent Israel, from Abel to Zechariah (Luke 11:51). The account of Abel’s death is, of course, in Genesis; that of Zechariah is in 2 Chronicles 24:20-21, which is the last book in the order of the books in the Hebrew Bible (not Malachi as in our English Bibles). Therefore, it is as if the Lord had said, “Your guilt is recorded all through the Bible—from Genesis to Malachi.” And He did not include any of the apocryphal books that were in existence at that time and which contained the accounts of other martyrs. While these book are of value, the canonizers of the period felt that they "did not reveal the divine nature of God". The first church council to list all twenty-seven books of the New Testament was the Council of Carthage in A.D. 397. Individual books of the New Testament were acknowledged as Scripture before this time (2 Pet 3:16 nd 1 Tim 5:17, and most were accepted in the era just after the apostles (Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John and Jude were debated for some time). The selection of the canon was a process that went on until each book proved its own worth by passing the tests of canonicity. The twelve books of the Apocrypha were never accepted by the Jews or by our Lord on a par with the books of the Old Testament. They were revered but were not considered Scripture. They had historical value, but none were recognized to reveal the divine nature of God. The Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament done in the third century B.c.) included the Apocrypha with the Old Testament canonical books. Jerome (ca. Ail 340—420) in translating the Vulgate distinguished the canonical books from the ecclesiastical books (the Apocrypha), which had the effect of according them a secondary status. The Council of Trent (1548) recognized them as canonical, though the Reformers rejected this decree. In our English Bibles the Apocrypha was set apart in the Coverdale, Geneva, and King James versions. The first English Bible to exclude it entirely as a matter of policy was an Amsterdam edition of the Geneva Bible published in 1640, and the first English Bible printed in America (the Aitken Bible, 1782) omitted it.
Is Our Present Text Reliable?
The original copies of the Old Testament were written on leather or papyrus from the time of Moses (ca. 1450 B.c.) to the time of Malachi (400 B.C.). Until the sensational discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1947 we did not possess copies of the Old Testament earlier than Ail 895. The reason for this is simply that the Jews had an almost superstitious veneration for the text, which impelled them to bury copies that had become too old for use. Indeed, the Masoretes (traditionalists), who between Ail 600 and 950 added accents and vowel points and in general standardized the Hebrew text, devised complicated safeguards for the making of copies. They checked each copy carefully by counting the middle letter of pages, books, and sections. Someone has said that every thing countable was counted. When the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered, they gave us a Hebrew text from the second to first century B.C. of all but one of the books (Esther) of the Old Testament. This was of the greatest importance, for it provided a much earlier check on the accuracy of the Masoretic text, which has now proved to be extremely accurate. Other early checks on the Hebrew text include the Septuagint translation (middle of third century B.C.), the Aramaic Targums (paraphrases and quotes of the Old Testament), quotations in early Christian writers, and the Latin translation of Jerome (A.D. 400) that was made directly from the Hebrew text of his day. All of these give us the data for being assured of having an accurate text of the Old Testament. More than 5,000 manuscripts of the New Testament exist today, which makes the New Testament the best-attested document of all ancient writings. The contrast is quite startling. Not only are there so many copies of the New Testament in existence, but many of them are early. The approximately seventy-five papyri fragments date from Ail 135 to the eighth century and cover parts of twenty-five of the twenty-seven books and about 40 percent of the text. The many hundreds of parchment copies include the great Codex Sinaiticus (fourth century), the Codex Vaticanus (also fourth century), and the Codex Alexandrinus (fifth century). In addition, there are 2,000 lectionaries (church service books containing many Scripture portions), more than 86,000 quotations of the New Testament in the church Fathers, old Latin Syriac and Egyptian translations dating from the third century, and Jerome's Latin translation. All of the data plus all of the scholarly work that has been done with it assures us that we possess today an accurate and reliable text of the New Testament.
 
 
I meant a conversation here on the thread about the topic brought up.

The question of which books belong in the Bible is called the question of the canon.
The canon, or the list of "approved" books that people have decided were "inspired" by God, is something that developed over a long period of time.

The first person of any note to list the 27 books of the New Testament in the order found in most Bibles (not all, but most) was a guy named Athanasius who was Bishop of Alexandria (in Egypt). And this list was placed on the back of his "Easter Letter" in 367 AD. This means, of course, that it took about 300 years before the books of the New Testament were settled for the Catholic Church that later split into the Roman Catholic and the Orthodox Catholic. (There was no Protestant church at the time.)

The first and only canon approved by an apostle, is that held by the Church of the East - the church started by the Apostle Thomas in Parthia (Persia / Iraq and Iran). Here is the translation of the Aramaic New Testament published by the Church of the East. Please note the table of contents, specifically that the book of Revelation is NOT present.

In addition, I will provide a link to an interesting list of various canons that were approved over the years.

The last thing I would mention is that scripture is viewed quite differently by the Catholic church than by the Protestant church. In order to eliminate the Pope as the ultimate Ecclesiastical Authority, Martin Luther needed to replace this with something, and he selected the Bible. The thing is, Luther just could not comprehend that anybody could read the exact same passage as he and come up with a completely different understanding. He did NOT publish a German translation so that people who could read German could figure out what it meant. Luther published a German bible so that people who could read German could see that he, Luther, was RIGHT !! (Didn't quite work out that way.)

Rhema

And even Luther wanted to remove James and Revelation.
 
Yes-- the RCC does view the Bible very differently than Protestants do. There's a lady on Facebook who was open to talking about the RCC so I was asking for her various questions. She liked to side-step or expanding on what Bible was actually stating. She hasn't responded back any more. She said thst the RCC doesn't vary from Scripture.

Well no one is very fond of Book of Revelation. I was looking at book of James. It's about faith and works. A person's faith being seen by their works.
 
Yes-- the RCC does view the Bible very differently than Protestants do.
Truly, it's a question of Ecclesiastical Authority. What should one do when having a theological question? What should one do when encountering two handwritten copies of scripture (specifically the New Testament) that don't agree with one another? Which one is the right one? Up until 500 years ago, the answer was easy... ask your priest. If he didn't know, he'd ask his Bishop.

Bishops took care of the church of God -

This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. ... (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)​
(1 Timothy 3:1-5 KJV)​
For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre;​
(Titus 1:7 KJV)​
Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation.​
(Hebrews 13:7 KJV)​
Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.​
(Hebrews 13:17 KJV)​

The last verse is very clear. There are those in the church who have rule over you. Period. (So shut up and obey them. And don't give them grief.)

In the very early church, typically called the "Proto-Orthodox" church, each city had but one church, and one Bishop. People would learn from their Bishop. They did not learn by reading scripture and trying to use their own brains to figure it out.

When the Bishops weren't sure about a matter that was really important, they would call a convocation together, typically called a Synod, and during the meeting would issue canons - resolutions or statements that were voted upon by the Bishops. The most famous of these Synods was the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD that was demanded by the Roman Emperor, because he was tired of hearing differing and conflicting doctrines. It was at this council that the Doctrine of the Trinity was finalized, because how could the Emperor, who was a god, ever become a believer in someone who was just a man? Ergo, Jesus had to be God. And Arius was condemned, (even though he was right).

The earliest known council of church leaders is found in Acts 15. When you read it, though, please note that Peter lost the argument to James.

So again, within the Catholic Church (whether Roman, Orthodox, or Oriental), Ecclesiastical Authority is vested in the Church Fathers, the living ones more so than the dead ones (those who wrote scripture). And if there are questions about scripture, these are settled by the church, which has put together something called the Magisterium. You may find it beneficial to read the following article.


She liked to side-step or expanding on what Bible was actually stating.
And there in lies the rub. If you've read the above article first, (and I think you really should), you would understand (from the Catholic perspective) that neither she nor YOU have the authority to declare, expand, or muse about what the Bible is actually stating. The Bible is not open to private interpretation. It says so.

Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.​
(2 Peter 1:20 KJV)​

So she is not "side-stepping." Rather, she is being obedient to Hebrews 13:17 and 2nd Peter 1:20, refusing to make a private interpretation. Moreover it's likely that she just sees you as disobedient and combative, wanting to argue and contend about that which is already settled by the church. So whom should one believe? You? Or their Bishop? (Are you a Bishop?)

She said thst the RCC doesn't vary from Scripture.
And they don't.

As I've said before, the BIG mistake of Martin Luther is that he could not conceive of even the possibility that someone else could read the exact same passage and come up with a different understanding of what it says. When creating the German Bible, Luther had to remove one word in one passage and add one word in another to make it say what he wanted. Compare the following two statements....

For by grace you are saved through faith​
For by grace you are saved through THE faith​

Do these two statements mean the same thing? I trow not. In the second statement "the faith" would be the Magisterium... "Scripture and Tradition that makes up a single sacred deposit of the Word of God, which is entrusted to the Church." Yet the second statement is that which is found written in the Greek Textus Receptus.... "ye are saved through the faith." I recall first seeing this "glitch" back in seminary when reading an article by Pope John-Paul II. I found it to be a very interesting word play, in that the Pope concluded that Catholics and Protestants believe the same thing. (Was J-P II just naive? Or very shrewd?)

At the end of it all, though, the Protestants have accepted the Ecclesiastical Authority of the Roman Catholic Canons that established the list of sacred scripture compiled in the New Testament. ( I have not...)

Rhema
Well no one is very fond of Book of Revelation.
Good thing for you, then, that it's not scripture according to the Apostle Thomas.

I was looking at book of James. It's about faith and works. A person's faith being seen by their works.
Case in point... I read the same thing and would strongly disagree with your conclusion. But that's a different conversation to have if you wish.
 
@ Rhema. The book of Revelation is the last book of the New Testament. Who is the apostle Thomas .
Actually Ephesians 2: 8-9 says "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works , lest anyone should boast." Got to get lunch.
 
@ Rhema. The book of Revelation is the last book of the New Testament. Who is the apostle Thomas .
Actually Ephesians 2: 8-9 says "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works , lest anyone should boast." Got to get lunch.
Thomas was one of the original 12 apostles, tradition says he travelled east, at least till india. And he founded churchs along the way.
 
Who is the apostle Thomas

Doubting Thomas?

Matt 10:3 Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus;
Mark 3:18 and Andrew, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus, and Simon the Zealot;
Luke 6:15 and Matthew and Thomas; James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon who was called the Zealot;
John 11:16 Therefore Thomas, who is called Didymus, said to his fellow disciples, "Let us also go, so that we may die with Him."
John 14:5 Thomas *said to Him, "Lord, we do not know where You are going, how do we know the way?"
John 20:24 But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came.
John 20:26 After eight days His disciples were again inside, and Thomas with them. Jesus *came, the doors having been shut, and stood in their midst and said, "Peace be with you."
John 20:27 Then He *said to Thomas, "Reach here with your finger, and see My hands; and reach here your hand and put it into My side; and do not be unbelieving, but believing."
John 20:28 Thomas answered and said to Him, "My Lord and my God!"
John 21:2 Simon Peter, and Thomas called Didymus, and Nathanael of Cana in Galilee, and the sons of Zebedee, and two others of His disciples were together.
Acts 1:13 When they had entered the city, they went up to the upper room where they were staying; that is, Peter and John and James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon the Zealot, and Judas the son of James.
 
The apostle Thomas was also known as Didymous / Doubting Thomas. And there is also a Gospel of Thomas which is an apocryphal book.
 
The acceptance of the Apocryphal books has been on-going hundreds of years.

Some assert that all the books of the Old Testament canon were collected and recognized by Ezra in the fifth century B.C. References by Josephus (A.D. 95) and in 2 Esdras 14 (A.D. 100) indicate the extent of the Old Testament canon as the thirty-nine books we know. The discussions by the teaching-house at Jamnia (A.D. 70—100) seemed to assume this existing canon. Our Lord delimited the extent of the canonical books of the Old Testament when He accused the scribes of being guilty of slaying all the prophets God had sent Israel, from Abel to Zechariah (Luke 11:51). The account of Abel’s death is, of course, in Genesis; that of Zechariah is in 2 Chronicles 24:20-21, which is the last book in the order of the books in the Hebrew Bible (not Malachi as in our English Bibles). Therefore, it is as if the Lord had said, “Your guilt is recorded all through the Bible—from Genesis to Malachi.” And He did not include any of the apocryphal books that were in existence at that time and which contained the accounts of other martyrs. While these book are of value, the canonizers of the period felt that they "did not reveal the divine nature of God".

Isa 40:8; The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever.
1Pet 1:25; BUT THE WORD OF THE LORD ENDURES FOREVER." And this is the word which was preached to you.

2Tim 3:16; All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;

If God can control which way the rivers flow, and can create and name trillions and trillions of stars and galaxies, then I should think controlling what goes into the least would be one of the easier things for Him to do.
Nothing is there that He doesn't want there, and everything He does want to be there, is there.

Once we start doubting and taking apart the Bible, anything goes. Now it's a free-for-all. I don't like that commandment, I don't like that story, I don't like that passage.... so why don't we just remove them.
Well then, what parts should we remove? The parts I don't like or the parts you don't like? ..and while we are at it, why don't we add a few things, add a word here, and add a verse there.
Pretty soon it isn't the Bible anything... it's the book of my opinions. I've made myself God.

Rev 22:18; I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book;
Rev 22:19; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book.

For centuries all we had was a few codex copies, and the Alexandrian and Byzantine texts, people had been saying they had been added to, corrupted and changed over the centuries.
I myself own a Bible from 17th century. No it isn't thousand years old, but what it does tell me, is nothing has changed in the last four centuries. Also now we have Dead Sea Scrolls
We have something from the 1st Century to compare against. If anything this has proven how accurate the Bible really is.

The only canonized book missing is Esther. There are only 3 of the apocryphal books found with the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Also we have Bibles like...

From the 4th Century. Hundreds of Bible scholars over the Centuries have compared these against modern day versions, and have concluded that present day scripture is amazingly accurate.
 
As for the books included in the Canon of scripture or removed. There are certain criteria that apply. It's not just one or two people who accept some and take out others. That can be Googled.
And the books are not listed in chronological order. The major prophets are grouped other as are the minor ones. Bigger and smaller in size.
 
The apostle Thomas was also known as Didymous / Doubting Thomas. And there is also a Gospel of Thomas which is an apocryphal book.
When I started reading it, my spirit didnt agree with some that I read. I dont think Thomas wrote it.
 
Doubting Thomas?
SLANDER I TELL YOU... SLANDER... ;)

Thomas did not doubt Jesus, he doubted the other apostles, "THEM," and likely for good reason.

ܘܐܡܪܝܢ ܠܗ ܬܠܡܝܕܐ ܚܙܝܢ ܠܡܪܢ ܗܘ ܕܝܢ ܐܡܪ ܠܗܘܢ ܐܢ ܠܐ ܚܙܐ ܐܢܐ ܒܐܝܕܘܗܝ ܕܘܟܝܬܐ ܕܨܨܐ ܘܪܡܐ ܐܢܐ ܒܗܝܢ ܨܒܥܬܝ ܘܡܘܫܛ ܐܢܐ ܐܝܕܝ ܒܕܦܢܗ ܠܐ ܡܗܝܡܢ ܐܢܐ​
And The Talmiyde {The Disciples} said unto him, “We have seen Maran {Our Lord}!” But, he said unto THEM, “If I don’t see the places of the nails in His hands, and I put my fingers in them, and I extend my ida {hand} into daphneh {His side}, I won’t believe!” (John 20:25 Aramaic)​

And when I say "likely for good reason," just look at the doctrine found in the text immediately preceding Thomas' declaration...

And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.
(John 20:22-23 KJV)​

And compare such doctrine with the accounts in Acts chapters 1 and 2 (not to mention Matthew 28:18). Are we really going to say that the Apostles were given power to send people to hell ?? I wouldn't have believed the disciples either. And why do this if the Holy Ghost was to be received in the upper room (according to Luke) ??

I personally believe that Thomas just got fed up with things and went East into the Parthian (Persian) Empire to preach the Gospel. If nothing else, the canon of his church (a church spared from the theological ravages of the Roman Empire) is the only one that is personally approved by an Apostle.

The acceptance of the Apocryphal books has been on-going hundreds of years.
Just to note that by definition today, the books called "Apocryphal" are Old Testament only. And these are IN the 1611 King James Bible.

2Tim 3:16; All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;
(This lie has got to end...)

B-A-C ... I am surprised that you don't know this is a purposeful mistranslation of the Greek. The word "IS" isn't even in that verse. Verse 16 is the third phrase of a sentence started in verse 14:

But abide thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; and that from a babe thou hast known the sacred writings which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus - every scripture inspired of God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness: (2 Timothy 3:14-16 RV~)​

Not every scripture is inspired by God, which is why books from the Septuagint had been removed or placed in doubt.

1Pet 1:25; BUT THE WORD OF THE LORD ENDURES FOREVER." And this is the word which was preached to you.
For shame. You KNOW that ρημα (RHEMA) doesn't mean γραφή (GRAPHE).


.... Don't you ??

Rhema
 
present day scripture is amazingly accurate.
B-A-C...

Within the Greek manuscript corpus (collection) of the New Testament texts, there are more "differences" (aka variants) than there are words in the NT.

Wallace et. al.
20210516-072817AM-pict-45.jpg


And while you might not like it, number 4 exists.

YOU DO NOT have the authority to lie about this.

And you do NOT have the authority to put yourself as God to deny that people should know that these variants exist and learn about them.

Once we start doubting and taking apart the Bible, anything goes. Now it's a free-for-all. I don't like that commandment, I don't like that story, I don't like that passage.... so why don't we just remove them.

Well then, what parts should we remove? The parts I don't like or the parts you don't like? ..and while we are at it, why don't we add a few things, add a word here, and add a verse there. Pretty soon it isn't the Bible anything... it's the book of my opinions. I've made myself God.
Yet, YOU have made YOURSELF GOD to shame others from looking at what the Bible actually says and the history of who took what books out and who put what books in.

Books were taken out. Books were put in. Sometimes hundreds of years after they were written. You cannot deny this fact.

From the beginning of the Church to at least 397 AD, the church at Antioch quoted and treated The Didache and 1st Clement as “scripture,” and rejected 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, Jude, and Revelation. The Church at Alexandria also rejected most of those books, but accepted Jude and also Barnabas.​
The earliest existing list, from the late 2nd C (called the Muratorian Canon) leaves out Hebrews, 1 & 2 Peter, 3 John, and James, but adds Shepherd of Hermas and the Apocalypse of Peter​
Compilations from the 4th Century (including the Alexandrinus and Sinaiticus texts) were still including books such as 1 Clement, Barnabas, and Hermas. Eusebius, the renowned 4th Century Church Historian who attended the Council of Nicaea, reported in his History of the Church that Hebrews, 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, James, Jude, & Revelation were still all “disputed” books, and he still includes 1 Clement in his list of accepted new testament canon. A harmony of the Gospels called the Diatesseron persisted even as long as the year 500 in Syria.​
(cf. LINK)​

So by your own words, it WAS a "free-for-all" at least for the first 300 years. YEARS, sir. Centuries. What? It took God that long to make up his mind?

Even YOUR "authorities" took books out of the King James Bible in the late 1800's. So who are YOU to say that those people were right and had Godly authority to do so ??..

Who is to say that I do not? YOUR God?

If God can control which way the rivers flow, and can create and name trillions and trillions of stars and galaxies, then I should think controlling what goes into the least would be one of the easier things for Him to do. Nothing is there that He doesn't want there, and everything He does want to be there, is there.
WHICH "THERE" ???

YOUR'S ???

But of course, eh? God forbid that the Roman Catholics were given the right canon for their "THERE." And the Coptic church? The Ethiopians? The Church of the East??

"... the New Testament canons of the Syriac, Armenian, Egyptian Coptic and Ethiopian Churches all have minor differences." (cf. LINK)​

But B-A-C's canon is GOD ordained.

What utter arrogance to say that God blessed YOUR canon and rejected everyone else.

Rhema
 
@ Rhema. The book of Revelation is the last book of the New Testament.
According to whom? Not the Apostle Thomas, and not the Church of the East. I gave you their list. Why should I even post if you're not going to read what I write?

Actually Ephesians 2: 8-9 says "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works , lest anyone should boast." Got to get lunch.
Sue, I am sorry it does not. Your translation might say that, but the original Greek Textus Receptus is different.

Allow me...

This is the text as it reads in the Textus Receptus, the Greek text that the translators for the KJV used.

(Greek NT TR) τη γαρ χαριτι εστε σεσωσμενοι δια της πιστεως

(Greek NT TR) τη γαρ FOR χαριτι BY GRACE εστε YOU HAVE BEEN σεσωσμενοι SAVED δια THROUGH της THE πιστεως FAITH ...

Your translators have handled their scripture deceitfully.

Sorry,
Rhema
 
Back
Top