Firstborn removed from many MV’s which follows RCC doctrine of Mary not having other children, which scripture names Mary’s other children.

Leatherneck0311

Well-known member
KJV
Unchecked Copy Box
Mat 1:25 - And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: andhe called his name JESUS. NIV
Unchecked Copy Box
Unchecked Copy Box
Mat 1:25 - But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus. ESV
Unchecked Copy Box
Mat 1:25 - but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus. NASB
Unchecked Copy Box
Mat 1:25 - [fn]but kept her a virginuntil she gave birth to a Son; and he named Him Jesus. ESV
Unchecked Copy Box
Mat 1:25 - but knew her not until she had borne a son; and he called his name Jesus. RSV
Unchecked Copy Box
Mat 1:25 - but knew her not until she had borne a son; and he called his name Jesus. ASV
Unchecked Copy Box
Mat 1:25 - and knew her not till she had brought forth a son: and he called his name JESUS.
 
Last edited:

En Hakkore

Well-known member
KJV
Unchecked Copy Box
Mat 1:25 - And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: andhe called his name JESUS. NIV
Unchecked Copy Box
Unchecked Copy Box
Mat 1:25 - But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus. ESV
Unchecked Copy Box
Mat 1:25 - but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus. NASB
Unchecked Copy Box
Mat 1:25 - [fn]but kept her a virginuntil she gave birth to a Son; and he named Him Jesus. ESV
Unchecked Copy Box
Mat 1:25 - but knew her not until she had borne a son; and he called his name Jesus. RSV
Unchecked Copy Box
Mat 1:25 - but knew her not until she had borne a son; and he called his name Jesus. ASV
Unchecked Copy Box
Mat 1:25 - and knew her not till she had brought forth a son: and he called his name JESUS.
Similar to your Colossians example, what you refer to as removed is best explained as a harmonizing addition... in this case the text of Matthew has been harmonized to that of Luke where πρωτοτοκον occurs at 2:7, which is stable for this word with the exception of Washingtonianus (which has πρωτοτοκον at Matt 1:25 incidentally). The alleged removal of "firstborn" from Matthew for purposes of protecting the idea of Mary having no other children, which is inextricably linked to the doctrine of her perpetual virginity, requires the intrusion of a rather ignorant scribe who didn't realize what the preceding euphemism 'to know' meant since with or without πρωτοτοκον, the sexual union of Joseph and Mary following the birth of Jesus is anticipated and the inevitable conception of children thereafter...

Kind regards,
Jonathan
 

Leatherneck0311

Well-known member
Similar to your Colossians example, what you refer to as removed is best explained as a harmonizing addition... in this case the text of Matthew has been harmonized to that of Luke where πρωτοτοκον occurs at 2:7, which is stable for this word with the exception of Washingtonianus (which has πρωτοτοκον at Matt 1:25 incidentally). The alleged removal of "firstborn" from Matthew for purposes of protecting the idea of Mary having no other children, which is inextricably linked to the doctrine of her perpetual virginity, requires the intrusion of a rather ignorant scribe who didn't realize what the preceding euphemism 'to know' meant since with or without πρωτοτοκον, the sexual union of Joseph and Mary following the birth of Jesus is anticipated and the inevitable conception of children thereafter...

Kind regards,
Jonathan
They harmonized firstborn right out of their erroneous translation.
 

praise_yeshua

Well-known member
They harmonized firstborn right out of their erroneous translation.

Did you even read what he wrote?

Luke 2:7 in the ESV

Luk_2:7 And she gave birth to her firstborn son and wrapped him in swaddling cloths and laid him in a manger, because there was no place for them in the inn.

Do you see "firstborn" there?

It wasn't removed at all.
 

imJRR

Well-known member
Let's see now....

Mary was a virgin when she became pregnant by the Holy Spirit. That's the backstory. Matt. 1:25 confirms that.

She then gave birth to Jesus.

So....Is there really, actually, truly anyone who can't figure out that Jesus was her firstborn son??

Seriously - IS there??

As for the idea/accusation that MV's remove the word "firstborn" in order to follow the RCC doctrine of Mary not having other children - This idea/accusation is TOTALLY AND COMPLETELY WITHOUT TRUTH. In fact, it is the OPPOSITE of truth - It is nothing less than an open, blatant falsehood. Here is the irrefutable proof of that - Check out the following:

Matt. 12:46
Matt. 13.56
Mark 3:31
Mark 6:3
Luke 8:19
John 7: 3-5
Galatians 1:19

Go to biblehub and look the verses up in various MVs. You will see for yourself that what I'm saying is true.

The magnitude of the total and complete dishonesty of the heading of this thread is staggering.

The only question now is - Was it intentional? Was it deliberate?

If it was, then what are the implications?

You decide.
 
Last edited:

Theo1689

Well-known member
KJV
Unchecked Copy Box
Mat 1:25 - And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: andhe called his name JESUS. NIV
Unchecked Copy Box
Unchecked Copy Box
Mat 1:25 - But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus. ESV
Unchecked Copy Box
Mat 1:25 - but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus. NASB
Unchecked Copy Box
Mat 1:25 - [fn]but kept her a virginuntil she gave birth to a Son; and he named Him Jesus. ESV
Unchecked Copy Box
Mat 1:25 - but knew her not until she had borne a son; and he called his name Jesus. RSV
Unchecked Copy Box
Mat 1:25 - but knew her not until she had borne a son; and he called his name Jesus. ASV
Unchecked Copy Box
Mat 1:25 - and knew her not till she had brought forth a son: and he called his name JESUS.

Um, Catholics would argue that "firstborn" IMPLIES future births.
So I guess the KJV is the RCC rendering....
:ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:

Maybe instead of looking for malicious conspiracy theories behind every variant, you could simply look at the manuscript evidence and see that they could be caused for more innocuous reasons?
 

Leatherneck0311

Well-known member
Odd. It seems that KJVO-ists do not care about what God the Holy Spirit really said, but whether if what He said aligns with their beloved translation. 🙄 😟 😢
Sure those who stay with the KJV care what God says that is exactly why they stay with the KJV as opposed to allowing folks that do NOT believe God preserved His word to make changes based on their biases and life styles.
 

Leatherneck0311

Well-known member
Um, Catholics would argue that "firstborn" IMPLIES future births.
So I guess the KJV is the RCC rendering....
:ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:

Maybe instead of looking for malicious conspiracy theories behind every variant, you could simply look at the manuscript evidence and see that they could be caused for more innocuous reasons?
Wrong again if that were true there would be no Roman Catholic doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
Wrong again if that were true there would be no Roman Catholic doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary.

Do you ever proof-read your posts before hitting, "send"?
You seem to just type whatever nonsense jumps into your edit head, with no regard for accuracy or realism...
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Leatherneck0311

Well-known member
Do you ever proof-read your posts before hitting, "send"?
You seem to just type whatever nonsense jumps into your EDIT head, with no regard for accuracy or realism...
Yes, actually I do think before I hit send unlike many who don’t. The argument I presented pointed out that many MV’s removed “ first born” because of Rome’s influence and their pushing minority texts; however, the unthinking and those were with their heads stuck in the sand cannot see anything but that bad KJV, which by the way did not yield to biases and perverted life styles during their translation.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Theo1689

Well-known member
Yes, actually I do think before I hit send unlike many who don’t. The argument I presented pointed out that many MV’s removed “ first born” because of Rome’s influence

You ASSUMED that.
You CLAIMED that.
You haven't PROVEN that.

You don't seem to understand the difference.

And another and I have both pointed out that leaving in "firstborn" HELPS the RCC view.
So you truly have no clue what you're talking about.

Maybe you're confusing "prototokos" with "monogenes"?
 

Leatherneck0311

Well-known member
You ASSUMED that.
You CLAIMED that.
You haven't PROVEN that.

You don't seem to understand the difference.

And another and I have both pointed out that leaving in "firstborn" HELPS the RCC view.
So you truly have no clue what you're talking about.

Maybe you're confusing "prototokos" with "monogenes"?
FYI, firstborn implies “other” children coming ,which for some reason you seem not to understand.
 

Leatherneck0311

Well-known member
EXACTLY!
So why would the RCC want to "remove" something that allegedly fits their theology so well?
You might want to try thinking before you post.... Just sayin'.
Answer:there is more in the minority texts that supports their errors than exposes their errors.
 

logos1560

Well-known member
Roman Catholic doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary.

Are you unaware of the fact that some of the KJV translators may have believed this doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary?

According to his own writings, at least KJV translator Lancelot Andrewes did.

In one sermon, Lancelot Andrewes referred to "the blessed virgin" (Hewison, Selected Writings, p. 10). KJV translator Lancelot Andrewes also referred to "Mary evervirgin" (Private Devotions, p. 59). Dorman quoted where Andrewes referred to “the most holy, pure, highly blessed, the Mother of God, Mary the eternal Virgin” (Andrewes, p. 69). Trevor Owen cited one passage in Andrewes's Devotions where he wrote about Mary the following: "the all holy, immaculate, more than blessed mother of God and ever virgin Mary" (Lancelot Andrewes, p. 58).

Thus, the evidence is clear that KJV translator Lancelot Andrewes accepted the traditional Catholic doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity.
 

RiJoRi

Well-known member
This is odd. The Douay-Rheims has no trouble "adjusting" Gen 3:15: "I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel." but for Matt 1:25 it reads, And he [Joseph] knew her not till she brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS. 🤷‍♂️

--Rich
 
Top