The Original Matthew 28:19 Restored

[Scott Pitta]

Such a wise man !!!

[FlamingZword]

Originally Posted by seguidordejesus

Some people would love to change the Bible to fit their pet doctrines but we must deal with the Scripture as it is.

No one has changed anything.

There are actually ancient variant readings of Matthew 28:19 that do not have the Trinitarian ending, those existed hundredths of years before any of use now were born, we have simply exchanged the traditional reading for one of those ancient readings.

No one can accuse us of changing anything, we have simply accepted another text.

[Scott Pitta]

The last time we chatted you had one Coptic variant and a story about a second Coptic variant reading.

Should every Coptic variant reading be introduced into our Greek New Testaments ??

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

No one has changed anything.

There are actually ancient variant readings of Matthew 28:19 that do not have the Trinitarian ending, those existed hundredths of years before any of use now were born, we have simply exchanged the traditional reading for one of those ancient readings.

No one can accuse us of changing anything, we have simply accepted another text.

You're breaking too many traditions. Some will never hear.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by mfblume

You're breaking too many traditions. Some will never hear.

Amen, you scored yet another goal!

[seguidordejesus]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

those existed hundredths of years before any of use now were born,

So that's what, 3 days? Sounds like you got an Ethiopian to write you a new Bible and printed it on your laser printer!

I would hate to know what other inconvenient scriptures you've changed. I guess you're smarter than every other Bible translator in history. What are your qualifications again?

[FlamingZword]

[QUOTE=seguidordejesus;1376023]So that's what, 3 days? Sounds like you got an Ethiopian to write you a new Bible and printed it on your laser printer![QUOTE]

Sure whatever you say.

[good samaritan]

The thing I dislike about some new translations is that they completely change the "meaning" of some of the verses. IF there isn't a change of meaning then I don't have problem with modern English, but it seems there are some points where other translations are not in agreement with the KJV. I am not knowledgeable enough to translate Hebrew/Greek for myself so If I am going to take it at face value I will stick to the KJV.

Some of the hard to understand KJV scriptures that are harder to understand should be sought out rather then some modern day translater giving his twist on it.

[votivesoul]

There is a new(er) translation, available at Wal-mart of all places, which renders Matthew 28:19 like so:

...baptizing them into the Trinity...

I wish I could recall the name of this "translation", as it escapes me now. Perhaps I can look for it again.

So, which is worse? Acknowledging a variant reading with some historical precedent for veracity (Eusebius) or putting false doctrine in, and adding to, the very words of Jesus Christ (due to eisogetical bias)?

Personally I am convinced "make disciples in my name" is the original reading. Can I prove it? Nope. But is there legitimate reason to believe it's the original? Yes. Not from extant Greek manuscripts, granted.

But to think that Rome and the fallen church didn't purge the world of the variant to the best of their ability in order to comply with the new standard of catholic faith (trinity in unity to be saved), around 325 AD is naive.

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by good samaritan

The thing I dislike about some new translations is that they completely change the "meaning" of some of the verses. IF there isn't a change of meaning then I don't have problem with modern English, but it seems there are some points where other translations are not in agreement with the KJV. I am not knowledgeable enough to translate Hebrew/Greek for myself so If I am going to take it at face value I will stick to the KJV.

Some of the hard to understand KJV scriptures that are harder to understand should be sought out rather then some modern day translater giving his twist on it.

Why is the KJV your standard by which you measure other translations? If you don't know Greek or Hebrew well enough why take the KJV at face value? You could be basing your standard on a faulty translation, choosing to stick to something that shouldn't be held as the standard by which other translations are measured.

Give this a read:

https://bible.org/article/why-i-do-n...vailable-today