Have you heard of the Burning of the Bosom?

[brotherofJared]

Finding some of the numerous changes wouldn't be hard for anyone interested in doing so:

Psalm 82:1-New American Standard Bible 1995
1 God takes His stand in His own congregation;
He judges in the midst of the rulers.

Psalm 82:1---New American Standard Bible--2020
1 God takes His position in His assembly;
He judges in the midst of the gods.


If one were interested, in just the book of Matthew alone--

"THE CHANGES IN THEIR PROPER NEW TESTAMENT ORDER ARE NOW LISTED:

https://av1611.com/kjbp/articles/freeman-doctrines1.html

MATTHEW

1:25 "her firstborn" is omitted. That Jesus was her firstborn indicates that Mary and Joseph had sexual relations after the birth of Jesus and that others were born of her. The omission here seeks to add credence to the false doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church concerning the perpetual virginity of Mary. The Bible is clear that Jesus had brothers and sisters.

5:22 "without a cause" is removed. In the Sermon on the Mount the Lord warned of judgment for those who were angry with a brother without a cause. Should this change be accepted everyone who is angry with his brother may be judged. The effect is to bring Jesus into judgment for failing to observe his own words (see Mark 3:5). Such is contrary to the doctrine of the sinlessness of Christ.

6:4, 6, 18 "openly" is out. It is a Bible Doctrine that Christian work done unnoticed for the glory of the Lord will one day be rewarded openly (Col. 3:4).

6:13 "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever, Amen" is deleted. This ascription of praise to "Our Father" is found in 491 out of 500 existing manuscripts. This statement was made a century ago by Dean John Burgon.

8:29 "Jesus" is left out. The demons bore witness to the fact that Jesus was the Son of God. It was an identification of Jesus (in humanity) as the Son of God (in Deity). It affects the doctrine of the Person of Christ.

9:8 "marvelled" is changed to "were afraid." There is no reason to believe that the people were afraid because Jesus healed the sick of the palsy. There is every reason for them to marvel at the miracle.

9:13 "to repentance" is left out. The Bible doctrine of repentance is one that men would like to do away with. God requires that in order to be saved one must truly repent (Acts 17:30; 2 Peter 3:9). The word means "a change of mind" and there must be that concerning God, sin and salvation. Men think that sin does not really separate them from God--they must change their mind about that. Men think that salvation is by works--they must change their mind about that. There is nothing more evident today than the absence of repentance among those who are professing to be converted.

15:8 "draweth nigh unto me with their mouth" is left out. According to Isaiah 29:13 it belongs in because Isaiah prophesied of these hypocrites exactly that way.

16:2,3 "When it is evening ... the signs of the times" is all omitted. The Pharisees and Sadducees came looking for a sign and the signs were all around them. Jesus called them hypocrites because they could not tell the signs of the times.

17:21 Whole verse is left out. Power with God is to be had by prayer and fasting. That is a fundamental truth of the Word of God.

18:2 "Jesus" is left out. This is done many times by the corrupt Greek Text of Westcott and Hort. I have not chosen to remark about each instance because it would add many pages to this work. The MAJORITY Text continuously places the word "Jesus" in the narrative with the definite article preceding it. Thus it places him in the center of things and in command. It is doctrinally unsound for such prominence to be discarded for the word "he."

18:11 The whole verse is omitted. This verse tells us that man is lost, that he needs to be saved, and that the Son of man is the one who can do that. The doctrine of salvation through Jesus Christ is affected by this change.

18:15 "against thee" is omitted. This omission sets us up as watchdogs over others and if one sins we are to go and tell him. Such is not the teaching of Scripture. Were we to declare every sin we would be constantly busy (bodies) judging the actions and motives of everyone. This change is a very bad error.

18:35 "their trespasses" is omitted. Same thought as mentioned in 18:15.

19:9 "and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery" is removed. This is a very important doctrinal change which concerns divorce and remarriage. A man who divorces his wife and remarries commits adultery, and also the man who marries the divorced wife commits adultery.

19:16,17 "Good" before Master is omitted. In addition to that, the phrase "Why callest thou me good?" is changed to "Why askest thou me concerning the good?" Good Master is correct and Jesus responded to show the young man that only one was good and that one was God. The conclusion should have been obvious. Since Jesus was good he was necessarily God. The omission and change destroys the intended testimony to the Deity of Christ.

20:16 "for many be called, but few chosen" is left out. The Lord would have us know that many are called to inherit eternal life, but few are chosen by virtue of believing in Christ. It is a Bible doctrine that God wants all men to be saved but few will come to Christ for salvation.

21:12 "of God" is out. Jesus, who was God in the flesh, came to his own temple and said, "My house shall be called the house of prayer." It was the temple of God and the God of the temple was there.

22:30 "of God" is removed. There are good angels and fallen angels. The believers, in the resurrection, will be like the good angels "of God" who alone are in heaven.

23:8 "Master" is changed to "teacher." There are many teachers but only one master. The change here takes away the pre- eminence that God intends for his Son.

25:13 "wherein the Son of man cometh" is omitted. The warning to watch is tied to the imminent return of the Lord. The omission here does away with the doctrine of the Lord's second advent.

26:28 "new" is dropped before testament. The apostle Paul tells us that Jesus said, "this cup is the NEW testament in my blood." The change here is intended to corrupt the Word of God and to confuse Christians.

27:35 "that it might be fulfilled ... did they cast lots" is all omitted. It is very important in Matthew's gospel, where Jesus is portrayed as the King of Israel, to show that he is the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies. Here the parting of his garments and casting lots is the fulfillment of Psalm 22:18 which portrays the crucifixion of Christ. To omit this is to show the intended corruption of the Word of God by the textual critics.

28:6 "the Lord" is omitted. The very reverent angels said, "see the place where the Lord lay." They would not say, "see the place where he lay." The constant attempt to humanize Jesus and take away from his Deity does not endear the Westcott and Hort Greek Text to believers."

So much for the inerrant Bible. There seems to be a lot of meddling with the text and only the Catholic church knows what they did to the Bible before the Protestants started making their changes. The fact remains, we have NO original manuscripts. All we have are copies of copies.

 

[radvermin]

Finding some of the numerous changes wouldn't be hard for anyone interested in doing so:

Psalm 82:1-New American Standard Bible 1995
1 God takes His stand in His own congregation;
He judges in the midst of the rulers.

Psalm 82:1---New American Standard Bible--2020
1 God takes His position in His assembly;
He judges in the midst of the gods.

The sense of the word is the same. "Gods" here does not mean literal gods, hence why even the KJV has "gods" in quotations. I can guarantee you that the NASB translators are not polytheists. In short, the doctrine has not changed in either translation.

If one were interested, in just the book of Matthew alone--

"THE CHANGES IN THEIR PROPER NEW TESTAMENT ORDER ARE NOW LISTED:

https://av1611.com/kjbp/articles/freeman-doctrines1.html

MATTHEW

1:25 "her firstborn" is omitted. That Jesus was her firstborn indicates that Mary and Joseph had sexual relations after the birth of Jesus and that others were born of her. The omission here seeks to add credence to the false doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church concerning the perpetual virginity of Mary. The Bible is clear that Jesus had brothers and sisters.

This is dishonest. Firstborn is not found in "hios" but in the context surrouding "eteken". Your statement that this is to add credence to the false doctrine of the RCC is completely false. However, does this contradict any doctrine?

5:22 "without a cause" is removed. In the Sermon on the Mount the Lord warned of judgment for those who were angry with a brother without a cause. Should this change be accepted everyone who is angry with his brother may be judged. The effect is to bring Jesus into judgment for failing to observe his own words (see Mark 3:5). Such is contrary to the doctrine of the sinlessness of Christ.

This one is based on a textual variant. Most of the early sources have autou as opposed to autou eike. But the insinuation that Matthew 5:22, when translated according to the original text (as we have deduced) contradicts Mark 3:5 is to not understand that orgizo and orge are different, in that orgizo is of a magnitude greater than orge. However, does this contradict any doctrine? No.

6:4, 6, 18 "openly" is out. It is a Bible Doctrine that Christian work done unnoticed for the glory of the Lord will one day be rewarded openly (Col. 3:4).

Another textual variant based on older MSS that were not available to those translating the KJV. But this is not a contradiction. Either way, God will reward a person. However, does this contradict any doctrine?

6:13 "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever, Amen" is deleted. This ascription of praise to "Our Father" is found in 491 out of 500 existing manuscripts. This statement was made a century ago by Dean John Burgon.

Deleted is not an accurate word as that phrase is not found in many MSS, so it is questionable whether it's in there. However, does this contradict any doctrine?

8:29 "Jesus" is left out. The demons bore witness to the fact that Jesus was the Son of God. It was an identification of Jesus (in humanity) as the Son of God (in Deity). It affects the doctrine of the Person of Christ.

Does this contradict any doctrine?

9:8 "marvelled" is changed to "were afraid." There is no reason to believe that the people were afraid because Jesus healed the sick of the palsy. There is every reason for them to marvel at the miracle.

What translation are you reading from?
KJV Matthew 9:8 But when the multitudes saw it, they marvelled, and glorified God, which had given such power unto men.
NIV Matthew 9:8 When the crowd saw this, they were filled with awe; and they praised God, who had given such authority to men.
NAU Matthew 9:8 But when the crowds saw this, they were awestruck, and glorified God, who had given such authority to men.
YLT Matthew 9:8 and the multitudes having seen, wondered, and glorified God, who did give such power to men.
NLT Matthew 9:8 Fear swept through the crowd as they saw this happen right before their eyes. They praised God for sending a man with such great authority.

Sorry but I have to skip the rest...

9:13 ...
28:6 "the Lord" is omitted. The very reverent angels said, "see the place where the Lord lay." They would not say, "see the place where he lay." The constant attempt to humanize Jesus and take away from his Deity does not endear the Westcott and Hort Greek Text to believers."

I don't have time to go through every one... (I should be leaving for vacation 3 minutes ago!)
But it seems like what I haven't taken into account is that when dealing with translations there are good ones and bad ones. Asking for what has changed requires that you look at all of them and see what is the most accurate with the most reliable Greek and Hebrew MSS.
Saying things have changed requires more study.
But again, what doctrines have changed with any verses that you've put forward? And just because a verse doesn't have the entirety of every single doctrine is not enough to say that the doctrine has changed. You have to say that this verse contradicts a previous one, as opposed to saying that a verse doesn't mention it but it doesn't contradict it.
This is not as easy as you might think. Some words back in the 1600s meant something different than today, so you have to be careful not to be anachronistic about your view of the KJV.

All in all, good post. It's fun
Cya in a few weeks!

 

[dberrie2020]

The sense of the word is the same. "Gods" here does not mean literal gods, hence why even the KJV has "gods" in quotations.

Hi Rad--thanks for the reply.

There is a lot more to the story behind the change from "rulers" to "gods". It has a long history--which runs through numerous new texts--and the re-examination of old texts--culminating in this conclusion:

The Divine Council in Late Canonical and Non-Canonical Second Temple Jewish Literature

"Biblical scholarship has reached a consensus with respect to the presence of a divine assembly of gods in Israel's faith."

That isn't a reference to anything but real, literal, divine gods. You should read the article. That has shocked many--but it's a fact.

BTW--where do you find gods in quotations here?

Psalm 82:1---King James Version
1 God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods.


That has shocked many--but it's a fact. Some go into denial. Why?

I can guarantee you that the NASB translators are not polytheists.

That only means one can believe in the reality of multiple gods--and still be a monotheist. Michael Heiser is a prime example. Biblical authors are another.

In short, the doctrine has not changed in either translation.

The doctrine has changed radically, for the scholars. The lay hasn't caught up completely with the new conclusions.

 

[dberrie2020]

The sense of the word is the same. "Gods" here does not mean literal gods, hence why even the KJV has "gods" in quotations. I can guarantee you that the NASB translators are not polytheists. In short, the doctrine has not changed in either translation.

I don't have time to go through every one... (I should be leaving for vacation 3 minutes ago!)
But it seems like what I haven't taken into account is that when dealing with translations there are good ones and bad ones. Asking for what has changed requires that you look at all of them and see what is the most accurate with the most reliable Greek and Hebrew MSS.
Saying things have changed requires more study.
But again, what doctrines have changed with any verses that you've put forward? And just because a verse doesn't have the entirety of every single doctrine is not enough to say that the doctrine has changed. You have to say that this verse contradicts a previous one, as opposed to saying that a verse doesn't mention it but it doesn't contradict it.
This is not as easy as you might think. Some words back in the 1600s meant something different than today, so you have to be careful not to be anachronistic about your view of the KJV.

All in all, good post. It's fun
Cya in a few weeks!

There is a lot more to the story behind the change from "rulers" to "gods". It has a long history--which runs through numerous new texts--and the re-examination of old texts--culminating in this conclusion:

The Divine Council in Late Canonical and Non-Canonical Second Temple Jewish Literature

"Biblical scholarship has reached a consensus with respect to the presence of a divine assembly of gods in Israel's faith."

That isn't a reference to anything but real, literal, divine gods. You should read the article. That has shocked many--but it's a fact.

BTW--where do you find gods in quotations here?

Psalm 82:1---King James Version
1 God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods.

That has shocked many--but it's a fact. Some go into denial. Why?

I can guarantee you that the NASB translators are not polytheists.

That only means one can believe in the reality of multiple gods--and still be a monotheist. Michael Heiser is a prime example. Biblical authors are another.

In short, the doctrine has not changed in either translation.

The doctrine has changed radically, for the scholars. The lay hasn't caught up completely with the new conclusions.

So--an interesting story:

In some of the translations--Deut 32:8 has the nations divided according to the "sons of Israel"--or "children of Israel"(I'll condense this--you can ask questions later, if you wish)

The scholars have been perplexed as to that claim--since the Lord has never given the nations to the Israelites. The Biblical table has the nations divided into 70 parts.

When the Dead Sea Scrolls was translated--and it is an earlier text--it is not translated "sons of Israel", but--"sons of God". The text was changed.

When the Ugarit text was discovered and examined--it had the Divine Council as El, His wife Asherah, and their 70 sons of God.

The rest is history.

 

[brotherofJared]

Gods" here does not mean literal gods,

And we have to accept this because you say so? Whatever else you may think it means, God goes further than just calling them gods. They were all called sons of the most High... I gotta wonder who that might be. Where else do we find sons of God? Wasn't one of the crucified fir our sins? Wasn't he God?

Human rulers/judged may have been called gods out of respect for their role, but they were never called sons of the most high. That is reserved for real gods.

 

[brotherofJared]

This is dishonest. Firstborn is not found in "hios" but in the context surrouding "eteken". Your statement that this is to add credence to the false doctrine o bef the RCC is completely false. However, does this contradict any doctrine?

Yes. It contradicts the doctrine that the Bible is inerrant. That was the point of the post.

 

[DaGeo]

So much for the inerrant Bible. There seems to be a lot of meddling with the text and only the Catholic church knows what they did to the Bible before the Protestants started making their changes. The fact remains, we have NO original manuscripts. All we have are copies of copies.

Very good. I’m on it. Will be getting back to you soon as soon l have get a clear picture on what you’re asking

But please note: The difference between you and me. I will conduct a thorough investigation. You just believe what they tell you

 

[dberrie2020]

But please note: The difference between you and me. I will conduct a thorough investigation. You just believe what they tell you

And there we have the modus operandi.

 

[Janice Bower]

I was thinking, if the men on the road to Emmaus received a burning of the heart to confirm truth--then God could act that way to confirm other truths we have a question about. I don't believe that is the only way He can act, but if we prayed about truth, asking God for help in understanding something spiritual--then I believe He could act in the same manner described in Luke 24.

God never instructed anyone to determine truth that way.

Proverbs 30:6. Add thou not unto his words — As the word of God is pure, do not thou corrupt it, by adding to it thine own or other men’s inventions, or opinions; lest he reprove thee — By words or deeds; by discovering thy folly, and bringing thee to deserved shame and punishment; and thou be found a liar — Delivering thy own fancies and notions in the name, and as the truths of God, and thus being guilty of the worst of forgeries.

Proverbs 30:6 Commentaries: Do not add to His words Or He will reprove you, and you will be proved a liar.

biblehub.com

 

[Janice Bower]

It's not hard to see there is a conflict in the Biblical testimony--and the theology the critics bring here:

Romans 6:16---King James Version
16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?

How do you explain that?

Romans 6:16 is the true word of God. If you read and believe:

1 Corinthians 3:6 ,"I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase,"

you will know that God is the One Who changes the unbeliever.

 

[dberrie2020]

Romans 6:16 is the true word of God. If you read and believe:

If it is--then the theology the critics preach here is false, IMO:

Romans 6:16---King James Version
16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?

1 Corinthians 3:6 ,"I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase,"

you will know that God is the One Who changes the unbeliever.

And the One who judges all men according to their works--and that for life or damnation:

John 5:28-29---King James Version
28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,
29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

 

[brotherofJared]

Very good. I’m on it. Will be getting back to you soon as soon l have get a clear picture on what you’re asking

But please note: The difference between you and me. I will conduct a thorough investigation. You just believe what they tell you

Again, you don't know what I know. You ought to stop exercising your God powers. They aren't helping you.

 

[radvermin]

Hi Rad--thanks for the reply.

There is a lot more to the story behind the change from "rulers" to "gods". It has a long history--which runs through numerous new texts--and the re-examination of old texts--culminating in this conclusion:

The Divine Council in Late Canonical and Non-Canonical Second Temple Jewish Literature

"Biblical scholarship has reached a consensus with respect to the presence of a divine assembly of gods in Israel's faith."

That isn't a reference to anything but real, literal, divine gods. You should read the article. That has shocked many--but it's a fact.

So a few things. This is not a fact, it is an idea that has many presuppositions attached to it that require it to work (though Dr. Heiser would disagree). At the end he makes a statement regarding his presuppositions, and while he states that they aren't required, they do betray the inherent secular mindset towards the Bible that is required to reach his conclusions. In short, "Israelite religion underwent an evolution from an initial polytheism to a firm monolatry," (underline mine). He uses external sources to understand passages of Scripture which means his Canon is not Biblical (as Canon is meant to be the foundation for truth).
Moreover, I think it odd when anyone says that "Biblical scholarship has reached a consensus", as though this is a closed topic for scholars, when the top evangelical Seminaries would flat out disagree with his exegesis. He even cites sources that disagree with him.
How he ended up in a church and two seminaries is beyond me, as he would have to deny their statement of faith which all are clear that there is only one God.

BTW--where do you find gods in quotations here?

Part of my dyslexia. I was reading a parallel passage and the NIV translation was meshed together with the KJV. So my error.

Psalm 82:1---King James Version
1 God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods.
That has shocked many--but it's a fact. Some go into denial. Why?

2 Reasons why this cannot refer to true gods.
1. The Bible is clear that just because something is called "god" it's not really a god.
Jeremiah 5:7 "Why should I forgive you? Your children have forsaken me and sworn by gods that are not gods...
Jeremiah 16:20 Do men make their own gods? Yes, but they are not gods!"
Isaiah 37:19 They have thrown their gods into the fire and destroyed them, for they were not gods but only wood and stone, fashioned by human hands.
2. The context itself says that these are not gods (5-7)
5“The ‘gods’ know nothing, they understand nothing.
They walk about in darkness;
all the foundations of the earth are shaken.
6 “I said, ‘You are “gods”;
you are all sons of the Most High.’
7 But you will die like mere mortals;
you will fall like every other ruler.”
3. The Bible is clear there is only one God
Isaiah 43:10 Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.
4. This would detract from the Holiness of God.
God is thrice Holy even to the angels. Revelation 4:8 Each of the four living creatures had six wings and was covered with eyes all around, even under his wings. Day and night they never stop saying: "Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God Almighty, who was, and is, and is to come."
If we can be like God in being, he is no longer holy, for Holiness refers to how divinely separate God is from the rest that is in creation.
How is God Holy in the LDS teaching?

That only means one can believe in the reality of multiple gods--and still be a monotheist.

This is nonsense in the most literal meaning. "Belief in the reality of multiple gods" is by definition polytheism, so being a polytheist and still a monotheist is contradictory by definition.
Or to put it another way, how can a religion be monotheist and not polytheist? I don't even think LDS is monotheistic in that you worship the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three separate beings (gods).

Michael Heiser is a prime example. Biblical authors are another.
The doctrine has changed radically, for the scholars. The lay hasn't caught up completely with the new conclusions.

Well, this is actually false. But this is either a blunder on your part or off from the main topic which was that the Book of Mormon changes but the Bible doesn't.

You said, "The doctrine has changed radically, for the scholars. The lay hasn't caught up completely with the new conclusions."
However, you cited Michael Heiser which used the Bible to support your view of a plurality of actual gods, which means that according to you the Bible hasn't changed doctrine, it's just been misunderstood.
In short, it appears that you've conceded your argument by your examples.
However, if you want to say that you're only looking at the "scholars", and not what the Bible teaches, that just means that your argument is actually off topic from what I was arguing.


Side point, it should be noted that I'm still jumping in to someone else's point. I'm not aware of the comparisons/contrasts between what has actually changed in the BoM and what has changed with the Bible. So I cannot say what has actually changed with the BoM over the years.

 

[brotherofJared]

So a few things. This is not a fact, it is an idea that has many presuppositions attached to it that require it to work (though Dr. Heiser would disagree).

And your ideas have no presuppositions attached to them?

Heiser is not our only source. He is one of many scholars that have exegeted the passage, so I'm not sure how it matters whether Heiser would agree or not.

At the end he makes a statement regarding his presuppositions, and while he states that they aren't required, they do betray the inherent secular mindset towards the Bible that is required to reach his conclusions.

And again, how are these "presupposition" different than yours that "are required to reach your conclusions". Is it not true, that you presuppose that there is only one God? Is that not in direct contradiction to Paul's explicit claim that there are indeed many gods and lords? Why do you think you're right and all the scholars are wrong? Did God appear to you and tell you personally that there are no other Gods? Well, they did appear to Joseph Smith, both of them, the Father and the Son. They are separate beings and they are both physical, tangible beings; both human beings.

Assuming in Ps 82 that the God who rises in the council is the same God at the end who will rise to judge the whole earth is Jesus Christ, then who is the father of those he calls sons of the Most High? If Jesus is the Most High, then why didn't he say, you are all my sons? There appears to be an explicit hierarchy expressed in Ps 82 in which Jesus Christ is also a son of the Most High. So, there appears to be someone over Jesus, who he reports to and is answerable to. He seems to indicate that that individual is His Father, you know... the being who sent him. Further, who told Jesus, "it is finished"? Who decided when He had finished his work? It wasn't his Father. His Father abandoned him on the cross. So, who was it?

Don't think you can get away with calling out presuppositions of secular study. They make it a point not to presuppose. It is the religious presuppositions that needs to check themselves. Their foundation is shaky at best. They assume that there is only one God, and based solely on that presupposition, they deny science. Is the earth flat? Does the Sun orbit the earth? Is the earth the center of the universe? It's pretty obvious that religion is the problem.