The Original Matthew 28:19 Restored

[FlamingZword]

The book The Original Matthew 28:19 Restored has recently been updated with new information regarding the original wording. The next update should be in three months or four months.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Awesome

[Scott Pitta]

Find any Greek manuscripts to support your theory ??

[seguidordejesus]

Originally Posted by Scott Pitta

Find any Greek manuscripts to support your theory ??

He says he did, but if you do more research on those manuscripts, you'll find that they're very problematic. Can't seem to find his page at the moment, but I spent some time last time he was peddling his "change-every-jot-and-tittle" version.

[Sister Alvear]

Why would that matter?

[seguidordejesus]

Why would what matter?

[Fionn mac Cumh]

So what other verses did they wrong?

[Jito463]

I prefer to accept every word in the KV translation as the Word of God. I don't need a "restored" version, Matt. 28:19 says to baptize in the "NAME". And since Jesus is the only name given under heaven, whereby we must be saved, I can easily show - with the current translation - that Jesus is the name whereby we must be baptized. Whether one accepts it or not, is up to them.

These arguments about incorrect translations do nothing to further the Kingdom of God, and only serve to alienate unbelievers.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Fionn mac Cumh

So what other verses did they wrong?

I don't be knowing.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Jito463

I prefer to accept every word in the KV translation as the Word of God. I don't need a "restored" version, Matt. 28:19 says to baptize in the "NAME". And since Jesus is the only name given under heaven, whereby we must be saved, I can easily show - with the current translation - that Jesus is the name whereby we must be baptized. Whether one accepts it or not, is up to them.

These arguments about incorrect translations do nothing to further the Kingdom of God, and only serve to alienate unbelievers.

That's true, but being able to use the information for further research is not necessarily a bad idea. I'm in a church where many different translations are used by the congregation and ministers. I use to be hardcore KJV (not exactly onlyism), but when dealing with people of other languages the KJV translation shows its age. The RV, Louis Segond, Vamvas, plus other translations translate passages closer to the original Greek, and Hebrew. The Kutsal Kitap is one translation which is a pretty good translation of Greek, and Hebrew Bibles IMO. But one must truly understand what they're doing before entering textual criticism. Reason being, it is one venture that is not for the faint-hearted. In other words, be careful, be prayerful, and if you stumble across something you don't really understand why its there, make sure you check it out thoroughly before making a final decision. In textual criticism everything gets challenged, and reading books on textual criticism isn't the way one should proceed in my opinion.