Why do modern Bibles disagree if they use the same Greek?

[greenbear]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8LFu4IdJdd0&

[singular_me]

actually it is very interesting... not meant about bashing... but w can see why scholars/interpretations are a cause of divide that can only increase over time, Schisms are the fate of any doctrine and theorie. One cannot prevent a language from evolving... again, no bashing here, merely stating that civilizations and understandings are subjected to change just like anything else.

[MAGNES]

Not from studying the bible but this is very common
just reading Classical Hellenic History, even today in
my very limited Greek, there are Greek words that I am
aware of that do not translate easily, you need a sentence
or a paragraph to translate them fully, also, the same
word means different things depending on the context,
but usually those meanings are grouped together,
now this is my personal experience and I don't even
claim to speak Greek, because it is so bad, now go
back 2000 years in Ancient Greek writing which is different.
If you did not live in those times reading the material
it is a study on some words and meanings to determine
what the real translation is.

Just the Iliad alone has been rewritten and retranslated
so many times by many you can't even count,
the Fagles version, from 1990's was most modern
and won awards especially for preserving the poetic
meter, somehow, what a great feat, just another
example to ponder.

[jedemdasseine]

Biblical Koine has a deceptively subtle lexicon compared to Attic Greek or Homeric Greek, for example. Truly, all ancient forms of Greek are vastly different from English and, moreover, from the thought patterns of modernity to which we are accustomed. Even native scholars of Ancient Greek find even translating Sappho to be the endeavor of a lifetime.

[StackerKen]

Im a simpleman

Can you give me examples of what modern Bibles disagree upon?

[illumin19]

:D

Man, the first thing that came to mind was "License to Drive" when Corey Haim (RIP) was told to parallel park in a tiny spot and asked "In there!?" ;D

The instructor then says "WHAT AM I SPEAKING GREEK ???!!!" :D :D ;D

Check out starting at 2:53 ;D ;D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QtuVLGeFM90

Man, watch the whole driving scene compared to his sister's test......it's classic

[Quantum]

Befuddled people argue over ink in books.

Christians from the time of the Resurrection believed solely in "the Word," which is Jesus Christ Himself (John 1:1).

Christians didn't have Bibles in the beginning.

The Bible is but a tool to understand the Word, Christ Himself. The tool has wear & tear, and skill in using it varies greatly.

[MAGNES]

Im a simpleman

Can you give me examples of what modern Bibles disagree upon?


Anyone have a better one ?

http://www.biblegateway.com/

add another one, seems better

http://bible.cc/ephesians/6-12.htm

Online study tools on the bible, it gives you different
translations for different versions, line by line, your
question is not easy to answer, depends on lines translated.

There are some very non politically correct lines.

If the King James version is 1000 years old,
is it more correct or less, I'm confused, lol .

Read some controversial stuff long ago,
don't know how true it is, don't want to offend
anyone, some here may know where I am going.
Some claim the KJV was translated by the same
people that finalized the Talmud. Me ?
What Jesus says is very Western and applied
to Western countries till about 50 years ago.

I gave an example of *agles Iliad above,
the newest translations are the best.
Why wouldn't the same apply to the bible ?

Problem is political correctness and leftist ideologies,
they effect University studies, discoveries, archeology,
they keep corrupting history even, taking apart classics
departments, etc, think of how explosive new more
accurate versions may be ? Even the Magna Carta is
censored, lol . Same with Martin Luther, lol, and
Ezra Pound, lol, wait , lol, everything is.

[MAGNES]

Some points to answer the question.

It does not just apply to the OT or NT,
I would say NT would be easier to translate,
that is just a guess, lol .

This is hilarious.

F agles Robert , censored ? The star is being put in by the forum, Robert *agles

even messing up the link with his name, lol

A beautiful gift set of Robert *agles' award-winning translations of Homer

Gripping listeners and readers for more than 2,700 years, The Iliad is the story of the Trojan War and the rage of Achilles. Combining the skills of a poet and scholar, Robert *agles brings the energy of contemporary language to this enduring heroic epic.

If The Iliad is the world's greatest war story, then The Odyssey is literature's greatest evocation of every man's journey through life. Here again, *agles has performed the translator's task magnificently, giving us an Odyssey to read aloud, to savor, and to treasure for its sheer lyrical mastery.

Each volume contains a superb introduction with textual and critical commentary by renowned classicist Bernard Knox.

* Deluxe paperback editions with French flaps and acid-free paper in a handsome slipcase

* Robert *agles is the recipient of the 1997 PEN/Ralph Manheim Medal for Translation and a 1996 Academy Award in Literature from the American Academy of Arts and Letters

* The Iliad was a New York Times Notable Book and won the 1991 Harold Morton Landon Translation Award by The Academy of American Poets, an award from the Translation Center of Columbia University, and the New Jersey Humanities Book Award

* The Odyssey was chosen by Time as one of the ten Best Books of 1996

[StackerKen]

Im a simpleman

Can you give me examples of what modern Bibles disagree upon?


Anyone have a better one ?

http://www.biblegateway.com/

add another one, seems better

http://bible.cc/ephesians/6-12.htm

Online study tools on the bible, it gives you different
translations for different versions, line by line, your
question is not easy to answer, depends on lines translated.



Yep those are good ones Magnes...I go to both those sites quite often.

I like bible.cc cause I can compare the different translations.
Never seen much difference really though. They basically all say the same thing to me.

I also like that your link to Bible.cc was to ephesians 6:12
Great verse! ;D

[greenbear]

I speak several European languages.

I checked the Bibles in those other languages and the 1 Cor 1:18 says "being saved".


Is that the reason why the tiny nation of British isles grew into a huge worldwide empire?
:D

---------------------

As an example I attached a fragment of 9-th century translation to Macedonian ( Old Slavonic / Church Slavic ) by two Greek missionaries Cyril and Methodius (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saints_Cyril_and_Methodius) (Κύριλλος καὶ Μεθόδιος ) who produced a translation that became a Bible standards for almost all Slavs of Europe.



Is that the reason why the tiny nation of British isles grew into a huge worldwide empire?
:D

I believe that is right according to man's perspective. The KJV alone among all the English versions is perfect in doctrine. The British empire, followed by it's offshoot America, evangelized much of the world using the Authorized Version King James Bible. Domestically, there are accounts in centuries past of preaching from the KJB that caused mass conversions. The spirit of God was so strong in some cases that it was reported that men on ships coming to port were convicted, and converted without even hearing the preaching that was going on ashore. God works through the King James Bible.

Additionally, from what I believe to be God's perspective, he foreknew that English would become the next international language, and he caused his pure word to be translated into Elizabethan English, which incidentally was the height of the English language, before that (English as the international language) came to pass. He also foreknew (and foreordained) that Britain, then America, would have the material means to to evangelize much of the world for the gospel of Christ.

God blesses that nation whose people will walk in his ways, but those nations whose people will go their own way he will let go. As a result, they will lose their material and spiritual blessings, and in exchange will receive curses because they have willfully and knowingly broken through the hedge of God's protection. That's my view, anyhow. :)

[greenbear]

I speak several European languages.

I checked the Bibles in those other languages and the 1 Cor 1:18 says "being saved".

G2rad, I don't know much about this topic, but from what I have read and heard from foreign missionaries/pastors is that there were quite a number of foreign language Bibles, or NT only, based on the TR and/or the KJB in the past few centuries. My very sketchy understanding is that for the most part these have been replaced with foreign translations based upon the minority texts. In many cases, the TR based translations have been all but lost. The American Bible Society and other organizations have been instrumental in extinguishing the TR similar to what has been done in the English speaking countires.

I know an American pastor in the Philippines who is working on translating the KJB into Tagalog. The NT is available but it is not based on TR. He searched for years for an old full Bible translation based more closely on TR that he had heard existed, and he finally found a copy of it last year. He and a few other pastors are comparing it to the KJB and doing direct translations from the KJB to improve the old Tagalog translation.

If you are interested, you can look at this link to a Chinese Christian's site which has some information on the topic of translation work from the KJB into other languages, Asian, European, etc. One man on his list, John Hinton, is in my area, and he has done (and is doing) impressive work.

http://www.kjv-asia.com/bible_believing_ministries.htm

[StackerKen]

I don't see the difference between "are being saved" and "Are saved"


am I missing something here?

[greenbear]

A person who is saved is a person who has been born-again by the spirit of God. The new birth is a one time occurrence.

Are being saved describes a continual process, so it does not and cannot refer to the new-birth of the spirit that occurs when one comes to a saving faith in Christ. That translation implies that works are a condition of salvation, and the possibility of losing one's salvation. It does violence to the Biblical doctrine of eternal security of the believer.

[StackerKen]

Couldn't it just be implying Sanctification?

As you know GB there is justification, which comes frist...then continual ongoing Sanctification.

For those reading that might not be familiar with this...I found this..
...
...

Justification speaks of a legal declaration that gives one a right standing before God. It is a one time event. It involves an imputed righteousness of Christ in which we, although we are sinners, are pronounced "not guilty" of sin as in a court of law. We are cleared of any charges against us. Christ's sacrifice means he was punished in our place, satisfying the demands of the law, and God's justice upon sin.

Sanctification begins with justification - it means to separate one unto Christ's service.We are both sanctified and justified when we exercise faith in the gospel for salvation. Sanctification is a continual work of the Holy Spirit in the believer to conform us to the image of God's Son. It is the holy Spirits work to bring practical holiness and the fruit of the Spirit in ones live. This is continual process until one is taken to be with the Lord.
...
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,


So "being" saved could be referring to Sanctification.....right?

[Quantum]

God works through the King James Bible.


God works through the Holy Spirit. If the Spirit of God can use a written Bible, then He will. If not, or if not needed, He'll do that instead.

Worship the Word (Christ Himself), not a work (the Bible, or particularly, a specific translation).

[Quantum]

It does violence to the Biblical doctrine of eternal security of the believer.


There is no "Biblical doctrine of eternal security."

Those who believe in Jesus Christ are saved. If someone stops believing in Christ, for example, maliciously denounces Him as a myth, they can no longer count on being written in the Book of Life. Reference John 3:16, for example.

"Eternal security" is a Calvinist heresy. It is the foundation of the "do as thou wilt" attitude among so-called "Christians" today.

[G2Rad]

1 John 5

1 Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him.

2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments.

3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.

4 For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith.

( G2Rad ( See Revelation ) )

5 Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?

6 This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth.

7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

9 If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son.

10 He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.

11 And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.

12 He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.

13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.

[7th trump]

A person who is saved is a person who has been born-again by the spirit of God. The new birth is a one time occurrence.

Are being saved describes a continual process, so it does not and cannot refer to the new-birth of the spirit that occurs when one comes to a saving faith in Christ. That translation implies that works are a condition of salvation, and the possibility of losing one's salvation. It does violence to the Biblical doctrine of eternal security of the believer.

Just becasue you are saved doesnt mean you can sin and not worry about your salvation like so many church goers and bible thumpers beleive.
Those who are "saved" and have been a church goer all their lives will not enter the Kingdom if they are fooled into worshipping the fake messiah.
THEY DO NOT ENTER THE KINGDOM FOR THEY HAVE NOT PUT ON IMMORTALITY. (Putting on immortality is entering the Kingdom)
Think about it. If you are so called "saved", sat in the front pew all your life, read the Bible inside and out and tythed you'd think you know whats going on (or should know anyway [many examples of this type in this forum]) when the fake messiah appears and gets you to woreship him. (do you really think you know and understand Gods word?)
Look at all the people who beleive in the rapture "fly away" doctrine. They think they are gonna fly up into a cloud and the remaining will be judged by Gods rath. Theres no place in the Bible that confirms the remaining are to be judged or anybody is going to fly away.
Do you really think you deserve to be in the Kingdom when you claim you know the Bible inside and out, but yet whored after the fake messiah when it was all said and done anyway?
No..............you will not be permitted into the Kingdom regardless of being so called "saved" for worshipping the anti-christ.
Theres simply no excuse!

[7th trump]

1 John 5

1 Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him.

2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments. (perfect example of being "saved" is not something set in stone. Anybody catch the "condition".........."and keep his commandments". Its all fine and dandy unless you dont keep His Commandments.............thats the condition)

3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.

4 For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith.

( G2Rad ( See Revelation ) )

5 Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?[/u](you still have to keep the Commandments)

6 This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth.

7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

9 [u]If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son.

10 He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.

11 And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.

12 He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.

13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.

[G2Rad]

(perfect example of being "saved" is not something set in stone. Anybody catch the "condition".........."and keep his commandments". Its all fine and dandy unless you dont keep His Commandments.............thats the condition)


It is not a "condition". I don't believe Jesus struggled grinding His teeth to keep Himself from sin. :)

Ultimately sin is stupidity.

[7th trump]

(perfect example of being "saved" is not something set in stone. Anybody catch the "condition".........."and keep his commandments". Its all fine and dandy unless you dont keep His Commandments.............thats the condition)


It is not a "condition". I don't believe Jesus struggled grinding His teeth to keep Himself from sin. :)

Ultimately sin is stupidity.

Really................not a condition?
So do you think you are saved if you do not keep the Commandments?
Do you really think you are saved if you never kept the Commandments?
Heres a scenario for you.
Suppose you have a job as a hit man (murderer) and go to church on Sunday and tythe and do all sorts of good things for the kiddies. You are still a murderer in direct violation of a Commandment..............think you are saved just by beleiving that theres a Jesus Christ?
Dont argue with me as I didnt write the Bible, however I wouldnt question God to the point where you are going.

Are you going to take the roll of satan and rebel to write your own rules about how the Commandments play into being saved?
A lot of people including yourself just take it into their hands as to what is and what isnt...............thats just plain stupidity and foolish
Did you happen to see the comma just before the word "and"....................thats a condition.
Personally I dont see how anybody can be saved without following the Commandments, but hey you can think what you want. Its your choice to ignore Gods rules and carry on.

[7th trump]

(perfect example of being "saved" is not something set in stone. Anybody catch the "condition".........."and keep his commandments". Its all fine and dandy unless you dont keep His Commandments.............thats the condition)


It is not a "condition". I don't believe Jesus struggled grinding His teeth to keep Himself from sin. :)

Ultimately sin is stupidity.

What does Jesus grinding his teeth have to do with you keeping Gods Commandments as a condition to being saved?
Why would Jesus grind his teeth? He has all the faith in the world to beleive himself.............Hes the word. satan was no temptation to Jesus what so ever.
You and I on the other hand may have to grind our teeth to keep from being tempted.
Anyway you make no sense because if you look at John 3 it tells you what the love is and that is keeping the Commandments.
3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.

A lot of church goers beleive in Christ, but do they love God by keeping his Commandments or just satisfy themselves into thinking they are saved because some idiot says all you need to do is beleive in Christ to be raptured away and you are saved..........bull shyt. Theres more to it than simply believing in Christ.
If that were true the Bible would be one sentence long.
Yep..............the whole world is going to whore after the fake messiah all the while beleiving they will be raptured away.
It will be a sad day for these life long church going rapturites when they find out they didnt make it. They will wish for the mountains to bury them to cover their shame.

[greenbear]

Couldn't it just be implying Sanctification?

As you know GB there is justification, which comes frist...then continual ongoing Sanctification.

For those reading that might not be familiar with this...I found this..
...
...

Justification speaks of a legal declaration that gives one a right standing before God. It is a one time event. It involves an imputed righteousness of Christ in which we, although we are sinners, are pronounced "not guilty" of sin as in a court of law. We are cleared of any charges against us. Christ's sacrifice means he was punished in our place, satisfying the demands of the law, and God's justice upon sin.

Sanctification begins with justification - it means to separate one unto Christ's service.We are both sanctified and justified when we exercise faith in the gospel for salvation. Sanctification is a continual work of the Holy Spirit in the believer to conform us to the image of God's Son. It is the holy Spirits work to bring practical holiness and the fruit of the Spirit in ones live. This is continual process until one is taken to be with the Lord.
...
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,


So "being" saved could be referring to Sanctification.....right?



1 Corinthians 1:18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

Ken, I don't see how this verse is speaking of sanctification. The subject is the preaching of the cross and it distinguishes between two categories of people.

1. The lost- to whom the preaching of the cross is foolishness.

2. The saved- to whom the preaching of the cross is the power of God.

This verse is about position, i.e., justification, not sanctification. :)

[G2Rad]

So do you think you are saved if you do not keep the Commandments?
Do you really think you are saved if you never kept the Commandments?


Trump put six "you" in his two sentences. ;D

For those who have ears, let not Trump deceive you:

Here is how it works:

When a person gets born again his "you" is no more.
A new hart is given. It is not about "self" anymore.
The Old self died. Christ who lives in such a person will keep His commandment.
That new being becomes one of Body of Christ.

Your proud "self" is now dead, it is crucified in you.

There is no more "you".

Read carefully the following:

Galatians 2:20
I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.
I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.


:)

[G2Rad]

Actually, the entire passage is relevant:

Galatians 2

Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid.

:)

( G2Rad we = "self" )

For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor.

( G2Rad I = "self" )


For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God.

I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.

[7th trump]

So do you think you are saved if you do not keep the Commandments?
Do you really think you are saved if you never kept the Commandments?


Trump put six "you" in his two sentences. ;D

For those who have ears, let not Trump deceive you:

Here is how it works:

When a person gets born again his "you" is no more.
A new hart is given. It is not about "self" anymore.
The Old self died. Christ who lives in such a person will keep His commandment.
That new being becomes one of Body of Christ.

Your proud "self" is now dead, it is crucified in you.

There is no more "you".

Read carefully the following:

Galatians 2:20
I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.
I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.


:)

Ya G2rad you can read but you are not paying attention.
So what happens when you(1) sin in this "new" self after being self proclaimed "saved"? Its still the same flesh and blood thats still being tempted before the old flesh died.
Say you(2) are saved, but you (3)are tempted into doing drugs and the drugs are to hard for you(4) to overcome. The drug habit gets worse and you(5) deplete your savings and lose your job, but the drug addiction is to powerful to kick and you(6) mug a person to get the next fix until finally one day you(7) mug a person and it turns to the worse and you(8) have a scuffle during this mugging and murder this person for a measely 50.00 for your next fix.
See your logic???..................there is no logic.
You(9) must keep the Commandments in order to be saved. Murderers and drug users dont go to paradise wether you (10)beleive you(11) are saved or not.
Understand whats being said in John. Theres a perfectly good reason why there is a comma and the word "and" just before the condition of keeping the Commandments.

[G2Rad]

I believe that is right according to man's perspective. The KJV alone among all the English versions is perfect in doctrine. The British empire, followed by it's offshoot America, evangelized much of the world using the Authorized Version King James Bible. Domestically, there are accounts in centuries past of preaching from the KJB that caused mass conversions. The spirit of God was so strong in some cases that it was reported that men on ships coming to port were convicted, and converted without even hearing the preaching that was going on ashore. God works through the King James Bible.

Additionally, from what I believe to be God's perspective, he foreknew that English would become the next international language, and he caused his pure word to be translated into Elizabethan English, which incidentally was the height of the English language, before that (English as the international language) came to pass. He also foreknew (and foreordained) that Britain, then America, would have the material means to to evangelize much of the world for the gospel of Christ.

God blesses that nation whose people will walk in his ways, but those nations whose people will go their own way he will let go. As a result, they will lose their material and spiritual blessings, and in exchange will receive curses because they have willfully and knowingly broken through the hedge of God's protection. That's my view, anyhow. :)


you know, GB,

I recently bought the 1611 edition (http://www.amazon.com/Holy-Bible-Version-Bonded-Leather/dp/1565638085/) of KJV (a facsimile).

I was amazed by the quality of sidenotes, and overall quality of the book

It is a beautiful book.

I have several KJV Bibles by different publishers and the 1611 is one of the best in my collection.

:)

[G2Rad]

Im a simpleman

Can you give me examples of what modern Bibles disagree upon?


Ken, here is why I am not comfortable with NIV:

Why isn't the word "sodomite" in the NIV?

:)

All instanses of the word were carefuly removed.

Now, look at the comparison and how there is not a system of deliberate corruption:

Who is Jesus?

Daniel 3:25
KJV: the Son of God
NIV: a son of the gods

Acts 3:13, 26
KJV: his Son Jesus
NIV: his servant Jesus

Acts 8:37
KJV: that Jesus Christ is the Son of God
NIV: omitted

John 6:69
KJV: thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God
NIV: you are the Holy One of God ???

John 9:35
KJV: Son of God
NIV: Son of Man

John 4:42
KJV: this is indeed the Christ, the Savior of the world
NIV: this man really is the savior of the world

Acts 15:11; 16:31
KJV: Lord Jesus Christ
NIV: Lord Jesus

Romans 1:3
KJV: Jesus Christ our Lord
NIV: omitted

I Corinthians 5:4
KJV: our Lord Jesus Christ
NIV: our Lord Jesus

Ephesians 3:14
KJV: of our Lord Jesus Christ
NIV: omitted

I Thess. 2:19
KJV: our Lord Jesus Christ
NIV: our Lord Jesus

I Thess. 3:11
KJV: our Lord Jesus Christ
NIV: our Lord Jesus

II Thess. 1:8
KJV: our Lord Jesus Christ
NIV: our Lord Jesus

John 14:28
KJV: my Father
NIV: the Father ???

Acts 7:59
KJV: calling upon God
NIV: omitted

-------------------------
Why these were removed? ???

John 4:3
KJV: that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh
NIV: omitted

Acts 2:30
KJV: according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ
NIV: omitted

Ephesians 5:30
KJV: of his flesh and of his bones
NIV: omitted

-------------------------
Why these were altered? ???

Matthew 1:25
KJV: her firstborn son
NIV: birth to a Son

Luke 2:33
KJV: Joseph and his mother
NIV: The child’s father and mother
??? Realy?

Luke 2:43
KJV: Joseph and his mother
NIV: his parents
??? Realy? :)

-------------------------
Why these were removed? ???

Colossians 1:14
KJV: through his blood
NIV: omitted

Colossians 1:24
KJV: that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ
NIV: what is still lacking in regard to Christ’s afflictions

I Corinthians 11:24
KJV: broken for you
NIV: for you

I Cor. 5:7; I Peter 4:1
KJV: for us
NIV: omitted

Ephesians 1:14
KJV: purchased possession
NIV: God’s possession ???

Hebrews 1:3
KJV: by himself
NIV: omitted

[G2Rad]

How about resurection?


NIV says Mark 16:9-20 may not be authentic.

well, I don't know that, but, read on.

Acts 1:3
KJV: infallible proofs
NIV: convincing proofs :)

Luke 13:32
KJV: the third day I shall be perfected
NIV: the third day I will reach my goal ???


------------------
What about ascention

John 16:16
KJV: because I go to the Father
NIV: omitted

John 3:13
KJV: which is in heaven
NIV: omitted

---------------------------
the TRINITY and faith


I John 5:7
KJV: For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost:
NIV: omitted ??? WHY?

Isaiah 48:16
KJV: the Lord God, and his Spirit, hath sent me.
NIV: the Sovereign Lord has sent me, with his Spirit.

Romans 1:20
KJV: Godhead
NIV: divine nature

Acts 17:29
KJV: Godhead
NIV: divine being

Colossians 2:9
KJV: Godhead
NIV: Deity

Romans 11:6
KJV: but if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.
NIV: omitted (!) ??? why?


Romans 11:30-32
KJV: not believed
NIV: disobedient (!)

Hebrews 3:18
KJV: believed not
NIV: disobedient


Don't you see the systematic deliberate change?
----------------------
How about INERRANCY OF SCRIPTURE

Luke 4:4
KJV: but by every word of God
NIV: omitted

Psalm 12:6, 7
KJV: The words of the LORD are pure words...Thou shalt keep them,
O LORD. Thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
NIV: And the words of the Lord are flawless...O Lord you will keep us safe and protect us from such people forever.
( ??? tottaly different meaning )

II Corinthians 2:17
KJV: corrupt the word of God
NIV: peddle ??? the word of God for profit


----------------
Satan
Isaiah 14:12
KJV: O Lucifer, son of the morning
NIV: O morning star

Luke 4:8
KJV: Get thee behind me, Satan
NIV: Omitted


---------------------------
Politicaly-correct changes ;D:

Colossians 3:6
KJV: children of disobedience
omitted

Mark 15:28
KJV: transgressors
NIV: omitted


I mean those are two very different gospels! Shell I continue? :)

[G2Rad]

Matthew 6:13
KJV: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever. Amen..
NIV: omitted ( sent into footnote :( )


Mark 13:33
KJV: watch and pray
NIV: be on guard, be alert ;D

---------------
Will there be second comming?

Matthew 6:13
KJV: for thine is the kingdom
NIV: omitted

Matthew 25:13
KJV: the Son of man cometh
NIV: omitted

Revelation 11:17
KJV: and art to come
NIV: omitted


-----------
How about sin?

I Corinthians 5:1-6:13
KJV: fornication
NIV: sexual immorality

Ephesians 5:5
KJV: Whoremonger
NIV: immoral person

Galatians 5:19
KJV: adultery
NIV: sexual immorality

Galatians 5:21
KJV: murders
NIV: omitted

Romans 13:9
KJV: Thou shalt not bear false witness
NIV: omitted

Mark 10:24
KJV: them that trust in riches
NIV: omitted


Mark 11:26
KJV: But if ye do not forgive, neither will your father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses.
NIV: omitted

Isaiah 53:10
KJV: an offering for sin
NIV: a guilt offering

I John 5:19
KJV: wickedness
NIV: control of the evil one


Revelation 2:15
KJV: which thing I hate
NIV: omitted

Matthew 23:14
KJV: ye devour widows houses and for a pretense make long prayers
NIV: omitted

Aren't those smoothed-out, "tolerant" ;D words?

[G2Rad]

Judgement:

Mark 6:11
KJV: the day of judgment
NIV: omitted

Luke 17:36
KJV: Two shall be in the field, the one shall be taken and the other left.
NIV: omitted

Revelation 6:17
KJV: day of his wrath
NIV: day of their ??? wrath

Revelation 12:12
KJV: Woe to the inhabiters of the earth
NIV: woe to the earth

Revelation 15:3
KJV: King of saints
NIV: King of the ages ???

Revelation 15:4
KJV: thy judgments are made manifest
NIV: your righteous acts have been revealed ;D


--------------------
Hell is too strong word to bear ;D, lets do away with it:

Psalm 9:17
KJV: The wicked shall be turned into hell
NIV: the wicked return to the grave

Deuteronomy 32:22
KJV: lowest hell
NIV: realm of death

Job 26:6
KJV: hell
NIV: death

Isaiah 57:9
KJV: hell
NIV: grave

Matt. 11:23; Luke 10:15
KJV: brought down to hell
NIV: go down to the depths

Mark 9:44, 46
KJV: Where their worm dieth not and the fire is not quenched.
NIV: omitted

-----------
Matthew 18:11
KJV: For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.
NIV: omitted


Mark 15:28
KJV: And he was numbered with the transgressors
NIV: omitted

Colossians 1:14
KJV: through his blood
NIV: omitted

Hebrews 1:3
KJV: purged our sins
NIV: purification for sins ( WHAT? ???)

I John 5:19
KJV: wickedness
NIV: control of the evil one

John 9:35
KJV: Dost thou believe on the Son of God?
NIV: Do you believe in the Son of Man?

I John 5:13
KJV: that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God
NIV: omitted

Mark 10:21
KJV: take up the cross
NIV: omitted

Romans 8:1
KJV: who walk not after the flesh, but after the spirit
NIV: omitted

Acts 4:4
KJV: the word
NIV: the message

----------------------
What about profecy

Matthew 6:13
KJV: for thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory, forever. Amen
NIV: nothing

Matthew 25:13
KJV: the Son of man cometh
NIV: nothing

Revelation 11:17
KJV: and art to come
NIV: nothing


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rev. 1:11
KJV: I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last
NIV: omitted ???


Rom. 11:6
KJV: But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.
NIV: omitted

Where is "after the order of Melchisedec" in NIV? ??? :(

Matthew 27:35
KJV: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, They parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots.
NIV: nothing

[G2Rad]

Ken, I threw my modern "Bibles" into garbage ( some of them were quite expensive :( )

I briefly considered selling them over ebay to some unsuspecting victims to recover my money, but decided not to do that for fear of the Lord.

[StackerKen]

Point well made Grad. Thanks

[greenbear]

Ken, I threw my modern "Bibles" into garbage ( some of them were quite expensive :( )

I briefly considered selling them over ebay to some unsuspecting victims to recover my money, but decided not to do that for fear of the Lord.


I kept my New International and my New King James Perversions so I could show people the systematic attacks that have been made on key doctrines in case the internet ever goes down. ;D

Nice exposition of changes made to the NIV, Grad.

As you stated somewhere, to paraphrase you :), there is evidence of a systematic attack on the Bible. Satan has a program for changing the word of God. He does it by mixing truth and lies, subtracting more truth and adding more lies over time, otherwise people would catch on too easily. He is very cunning.

Genesis 3:1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

All he really has to do is to cast doubt on the Bible's veracity and he has won.

[greenbear]

Befuddled people argue over ink in books.

Christians from the time of the Resurrection believed solely in "the Word," which is Jesus Christ Himself (John 1:1).

Christians didn't have Bibles in the beginning.

The Bible is but a tool to understand the Word, Christ Himself. The tool has wear & tear, and skill in using it varies greatly.



Befuddled people argue over ink in books... The Bible is but a tool to understand the Word, Christ Himself.


Matthew 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.


Psalms 119:105 NUN. Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.

Psalms 119:140 Thy word is very pure: therefore thy servant loveth it.

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Matthew 22:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.

Mark 14:49 I was daily with you in the temple teaching, and ye took me not: but the scriptures must be fulfilled.

Luke 24:45 Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,

Romans 15:4 For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.

1 Corinthians 15:3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

2 Timothy 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

1 Corinthians 15:4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

2 Peter 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

Revelation 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.


Christians from the time of the Resurrection believed solely in "the Word," which is Jesus Christ Himself (John 1:1).

Interesting that you use scripture to identify Jesus Christ as the Word, but you argue that scripture is no more than "ink in books". The scriptures testify of Christ, as you so aptly demonstrated.


Christians didn't have Bibles in the beginning.

Christians had the Old Testament, they had the preaching, teaching, and letters of the Apostles, men who had learned directly from Jesus Christ. They had the gift of prophecy before the scriptures were completed. The scriptures were completed, the canon was sealed, and all holy scripture was made into a book we call the Bible.


The tool has wear & tear...

Psalms 119:89 LAMED. For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven.

Psalms 119:152 Concerning thy testimonies, I have known of old that thou hast founded them for ever.

Psalms 12:6-7 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

1 Peter 1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
1 Peter 1:24-25 For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away: But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.


and skill in using it varies greatly.


This is the only thing you've said that we can agree on.

[Quantum]

Matthew 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.



That's correct. But "every word" of the King James Bible, as noble of a work as it is, did NOT "proceedeth out of the mouth of God," as you insist upon believing.

The Word and God's words are independent of a man-written book. The Bible CONTAINS the Word of God, but is not "the" Word of God.




Interesting that you use scripture to identify Jesus Christ as the Word, but you argue that scripture is no more than "ink in books".


I did that for your benefit, so you would see that even your KJV makes the distinction of "the Word" being Christ, and not itself.




Christians had the Old Testament, they had the preaching, teaching, and letters of the Apostles, men who had learned directly from Jesus Christ. They had the gift of prophecy before the scriptures were completed. The scriptures were completed, the canon was sealed, and all holy scripture was made into a book we call the Bible.


The canon was "sealed" by a pseudo-Christian tyranny. Unless you accept the Catholic church as completely legitimate, you cannot claim that the Bible is "decreed by God."

[greenbear]

It is fruitless for us to debate these things. I believe the Bible to be the words of Holy men of God as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

2 Peter 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

I believe that God preserved his inspired word for ever, because the inspired word ways so.

Psalms 12:6-7 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

The Bible says it. I believe it. For me, that settles it. We're all free to believe as we will, and to follow what we believe, while we still draw breath.

[G2Rad]

I have a question ???

Why would God not preserve His word throughout centuries for those who seek Him diligently? What is the thinking behind that?

Here is what I've been able to come up with:

1. He is not able to preserve the Book untouched? ???
2. He does not care about his creatures? ( Perhaps too busy? ) ???
3. He does not want His word to be known? (Perhaps to punish us (nations)?)
4. He thinks it would not hurt the Bible too much if man adds or subtracts here and there?
5. ( write your own reasons )

thanks.

[Quantum]

It is fruitless for us to debate these things.


It is indeed, when one party refuses to consider they are not omniscient.




I believe the Bible to be the words of Holy men of God as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.


Which "Bible"? The original, or the KJV?

This is a very dangerous position to take, for it would expose the Holy Spirit to ridicule if only one error could be demonstrated in the KJV or even the original written work.




I believe that God preserved his inspired word for ever, because the inspired word ways so.


In which language?




The Bible says it. I believe it. For me, that settles it.


Blind acceptance. Sounds like worship to me...worship of a book.

If God said it, then it is to be taken as gospel. But a book is not (necessarily) gospel.

[Quantum]

I have a question ???

Why would God not preserve His word throughout centuries for those who seek Him diligently? What is the thinking behind that?

Here is what I've been able to come up with:

1. He is not able to preserve the Book untouched? ???
2. He does not care about his creatures? ( Perhaps too busy? ) ???
3. He does not want His word to be known? (Perhaps to punish us (nations)?)
4. He thinks it would not hurt the Bible too much if man adds or subtracts here and there?
5. ( write your own reasons )

thanks.


Why would God not present the early Christians with a complete book of Truth, rather than let the Catholic church make one over three centuries after Christ was crucified?

Why would God not make sure all of us can read the original Greek or Aramaic?

We can speculate all we want, but it is His knowledge to know at this time. God allows confusion and error, because it forces us to rely on Him and not ourselves to know the Truth (at least it does for those who try "our own way" and fail). "Believing in" a book leads to errors which can only be corrected by believing in Him. All of the sectarian craziness and violence for nearly two millennia has occurred because people insist on one interpretation of a man-written work, instead of simply insisting on Him being the focus of each soul.

His Word has been preserved. Just never mistake it for ink on paper. The blind and the illiterate can know Christ as much as the most well-read Bible scholar. I dare say the former probably knows Christ more despite an inability to read.

[greenbear]

It is fruitless for us to debate these things.


It is indeed, when one party refuses to consider they are not omniscient.




I believe the Bible to be the words of Holy men of God as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.


Which "Bible"? The original, or the KJV?

This is a very dangerous position to take, for it would expose the Holy Spirit to ridicule if only one error could be demonstrated in the KJV or even the original written work.




I believe that God preserved his inspired word for ever, because the inspired word ways so.


In which language?




The Bible says it. I believe it. For me, that settles it.


Blind acceptance. Sounds like worship to me...worship of a book.

If God said it, then it is to be taken as gospel. But a book is not (necessarily) gospel.





May I ask on what you base your understanding of who Jesus is, what he said and did, what he testified of himself, and what he commanded of
us, since you view the Bible as full of errors, and therefore untrustworthy?

You mentioned the Holy Spirit. What does he tell you, and does it ever disagree with the Bible?

For instance, does the Holy Spirit tell you to love your enemies, and do good to those who hate you, and bless
those that curse you, and pray for those who despitefully use and persecute you? Or does the Holy Spirit tell you that there are exceptions?

Perhaps, like the Jews, or whoever you say those people are over there in Israel, Turkish Khazars I suppose you would say. Are they an
exception, according to the Holy Spirit?

[G2Rad]

GB, Ken,
I was wondering, why there are "difficulties" even in KJV, why there are two different spellings of Melchizedek (Melchizedec) for example, why does it say thirty cubits in 1 Kings 7:23, why it speaks in parables? ;D


Here is the thing:

Let us go back to Genesis.

God gave Adam & Eve the Commandment not to eat from the Tree of knowledge.

Question: why did not God fenced the tree roundabout ;D , with signs posted "STAY AWAY (God)" "BEWARE (God)" "DON'T EAT YOU WILL DIE (God)"?

Why did not He make a collar, which would zup Eve with electric shock whenever she comes near the tree? She would have had no doubt. ;D

Loud siren followed by playing of God's warning message recorded on tape would have refreshed her memory.

:)

Why there was nothing of that?


Bottom line is, there were many ways for Him to make sure there is no doubt in His word.

Yet He did not do any of the sort.

I trust the reason is that He did not want to mess with man's free will.

Building an electric fence would have left no choice for man.

Yet God wanted man to love and obey Him on man's own will, by his own choice,

Man was tested.

So we are. Each man is tested

There is a choice allowed for Mr. Quantum and for Mr. Trump.
There are plausible escape routs deliberately left open for all people in case they choose to believe lies.

One very important function of the Word is to test man's hart.

God's Word is a discerner of man's soul and spirit, of his thoughts and intents of the heart:

Hebrews 4:12
For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart

As in times of Genesis, once again God asks "do you believe me?"
:D

[G2Rad]

Here is another question that came to my mind:

God is infinite so is His word I believe, the same that is settled in Heaven.

Question to ponder: is it settled in Hebrew or in Greek or in God's own language ? ???

IF it settled in God's own language, what would happen when God's Word is translated into one of man's finite, limited languages?

Will it fit? ;D Seriously. :D :dunno

Proverbs 3:
Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.

|--0--|

One thing I know ....

[G2Rad]

I actually love Bible's so called "difficulties". Seeing each of them resolved is glory of God to me,
:D

[StackerKen]

Couldn't it just be implying Sanctification?

As you know GB there is justification, which comes frist...then continual ongoing Sanctification.

For those reading that might not be familiar with this...I found this..
...
...

Justification speaks of a legal declaration that gives one a right standing before God. It is a one time event. It involves an imputed righteousness of Christ in which we, although we are sinners, are pronounced "not guilty" of sin as in a court of law. We are cleared of any charges against us. Christ's sacrifice means he was punished in our place, satisfying the demands of the law, and God's justice upon sin.

Sanctification begins with justification - it means to separate one unto Christ's service.We are both sanctified and justified when we exercise faith in the gospel for salvation. Sanctification is a continual work of the Holy Spirit in the believer to conform us to the image of God's Son. It is the holy Spirits work to bring practical holiness and the fruit of the Spirit in ones live. This is continual process until one is taken to be with the Lord.
...
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,


So "being" saved could be referring to Sanctification.....right?



1 Corinthians 1:18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

Ken, I don't see how this verse is speaking of sanctification. The subject is the preaching of the cross and it distinguishes between two categories of people.

1. The lost- to whom the preaching of the cross is foolishness.

2. The saved- to whom the preaching of the cross is the power of God.

This verse is about position, i.e., justification, not sanctification. :)



Thanks for making that clearer to me Sister GreenBear :)

[StackerKen]

Thanks And Praise to God Almighty that we have the KJV :)

[Quantum]

You mentioned the Holy Spirit. What does he tell you, and does it ever disagree with the Bible?


God leads me to look into the whole Truth, yes, and if the King James Version is wrong, I credit Him with letting me discover it.

That said, the King James Version is far more "right" than it is "wrong."




For instance, does the Holy Spirit tell you to love your enemies, and do good to those who hate you, and bless
those that curse you, and pray for those who despitefully use and persecute you? Or does the Holy Spirit tell you that there are exceptions?


I do love my personal enemies, doing good to those who hate me, and bless those that curse me, and pray for those who persecute me. In fact, just last night I prayed for someone who belittles me as a "neo-Nazi white supremacist," and considers me nothing more than a "hateful anti-Semite." Of course that would be you! :)

Though you probably think I live to hate you, I actually just pity you, and pray that you will learn your errors eventually.
To be enslaved to Judeo-"Christianity" is a terrible thing, worse than being a plain Luciferian.




Perhaps, like the Jews, or whoever you say those people are over there in Israel, Turkish Khazars I suppose you would say. Are they an
exception, according to the Holy Spirit?


Those who are against Christ are God's enemies, and must be opposed.

As for my personal relations with Jews, any Jew who is not a rabid opponent of Jesus Christ is not my enemy. Unfortunately, most of them are.

[Quantum]

Thanks And Praise to God Almighty that we have the KJV :)


I concur and echo. I just don't consider the King James Version to be "perfect," because no work touched by man is "perfect."

[Quantum]

God is infinite so is His word I believe, the same that is settled in Heaven.

Question to ponder: is it settled in Hebrew or in Greek or in God's own language ? ???

IF it settled in God's own language, what would happen when God's Word is translated into one of man's finite, limited languages?


You're on the right path!!

God's Word is perfect, and how can perfection be rendered in man's imperfect languages or in the work of his hands (books)?

[greenbear]

On GIM, Saul Mine posted that God never promised that the Bible would be translated into all languages. I agreed with him, I was not aware of any promise to that effect. I was WRONG. There is not exactly a promise, per se, but there is a commandment from God to do so according to Paul. I am blown away!

Romans 16:25 Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began (the gospel of the grace of God to the gentiles),

Romans 16:26 But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:

The preaching of Jesus Christ and the gospel of the grace of God which is the mystery revealed to Paul, and the scriptures of the prophets , is now made manifest according to the commandment of God, and MADE KNOWN TO ALL NATIONS for the obedience of FAITH.

[G2Rad]

God's Word is perfect, and how can perfection be rendered in man's imperfect languages or in the work of his hands (books)?


No it can't ;D excuses are provided.

you don't get it, do you? :)

Here is what the Bible says:

Natural man can't understand the Bible.

1 Corinthians 2
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned .

So, how one could get all the truth?

John 16
I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.
Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth

You can't get it without Holy Spirit,
Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. (John 14)

Because I was like you before, I am sure for you the above-mentioned is stupidity. :o

---------------------

Is it stupidity for you GB? ;D

[greenbear]

God's Word is perfect, and how can perfection be rendered in man's imperfect languages or in the work of his hands (books)?


No it can't ;D excuses are provided.

you don't get it, do you? :)

Here is what the Bible says:

Natural man can't understand the Bible.

1 Corinthians 2
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned .

So, how one could get all the truth?

John 16
I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.
Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth

You can't get it without Holy Spirit,
Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. (John 14)

Because I was like you before, I am sure for you the above-mentioned is stupidity. :o

---------------------

Is it stupidity for you GB? ;D



God's Word is perfect, and how can perfection be rendered in man's imperfect languages or in the work of his hands (books)?

Quantam's quote is a perfect example of the thinking of the natural man. God's word (the Bible) is meant for man to understand. God created man. God created human language. God dispersed man and confounded his language at the tower of Babel. He created all human language. Is it too hard for God to preserve his inspired word and to convey it into other languages? The gospel is meant to go to all nations of men. Would he have commanded us to bring the preaching of Christ according to the gospel of the grace of God given to Paul, and the scriptures of the prophets, to every nation if it was not possible for Old and New Testaments to be faithfully and accurately translated to every language spoken to man? I trow not! God is not a liar, nor does he command the impossible.

Romans 3:4 God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.

It is certainly NOT stupidity to me, Grad. :)It is simply the way that God works. He does not force anyone. He is a gentleman.

Matthew 13:13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.

[greenbear]

why does it say thirty cubits in 1 Kings 7:23

Two apparent contradictions in 1 Kings 7:23. One is mathematical, one is in comparison with 2 Chronicles 4:5 regarding the volume of water in the molten sea. Both cannot be proved to be contradictions, they have logical solutions.

1 Kings 7:26 And it was an hand breadth thick, and the brim thereof was wrought like the brim of a cup, with flowers of lilies: it contained two thousand baths.

2 Chronicles 4:5 And the thickness of it was an handbreadth, and the brim of it like the work of the brim of a cup, with flowers of lilies; and it received and held three thousand baths.

Don't forget to take into account the brim on the molten sea. 2 Chron 4:5 tells us that the brim was the size of a hand breadth. If the hand breadth is equal to .225 cubits, then the inside radius of the brim is only 9.55 cubits (you have to subtract 1 hand breadth for each side). This number fits perfectly with the circumference given. (Copied that from someone, I'm not a science gal. :))

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbmbZlTXUzA&feature=player_embedded



An apparent contradiction that is in fact a contradiction in the NKJV, NIV and NASB.

One of the proofs of the true Holy Bible, which in English is the King James Bible of 1611, is that is contains no proveable errors. The modern bible versions all contain numerous real and not just apparent contradictions. A case in point is the differences between 1 Kings 7:26 and 2 Chronicles 4:5 where both sections speak of the molten sea constructed by king Solomon that stood upon twelve oxen. How much water did this molten sea actually contain?

In 1 Kings 7:26 we read: "And it was an hand breadth thick, and the brim thereof was wrought like the brim of a cup, with flowers of lilies: IT CONTAINED TWO THOUSAND BATHS." However in 2 Chronicles 4:5 we read: "And the thickness of it was an handbreadth, and the brim of it like the brim of a cup, with flowers of lilies; and IT RECEIVED AND HELD THREE THOUSAND BATHS."

This obviously looks, at first glance, like a contradiction. The NKJV, NIV and NASB all read slightly differently and it is this critical difference that in fact creates a very real rather than an apparent contradiction. The NKJV in 2 Chronicles 4:5 reads: "It CONTAINED THREE thousand baths." Yet in 1 Kings 7:26 the NKJV, NIV and NASB all say: "It contained TWO thousand baths." (Some modern versions, like the NASB, say it "could hold 2000 baths" - "it could hold 3000 baths" which results in the same real contradiction.)

Smith's Bible Dictionary also gets it wrong. It says: " It is said to have been 15 feet in diameter and 7 1/2 feet deep, and to have been capable of containing 2000, or according to (2 Chronicles 4:5) 3000 baths (16,000 to 24,000 gallons).

Easton's Bible Dictionary also gets it wrong. It likewise says: " It was placed on the backs of twelve oxen, standing with their faces outward. It was capable of containing two or three thousand baths of water (Compare 2 Chronicles 4:5)

The solution is really quite easy once you look closely at the correct reading found in the King James Bible. Not only does the KJB read the way it does but so also do both Jewish translations of the Jewish Publication Society of America and the Hebrew Pub. Company of 1917 and 1936, Young's translation, Green's interlinear, the Revised Version of 1881, the ASV of 1901, Hebrew Names Version, Webster's translation, and the Third Millenium Bible.

There are two verbs found in the Hebrew text in 2 Chronicles and only one verb in 1 Kings. The NKJV,NIV, NASB, Darby, Geneva Bible, RSV, NEB, NRSV, and ESV are all wrong and create a real contradiction by not translating the second verb found in 2 Chronicles 4:5. One verb is RECEIVED # 2388 and the second verb is HELD # 3557 three thousand baths.

1 Kings 7:26 tells us that the molten sea actually contained 2,000 baths of water, while the 2 Chronicles passage tells us that it could receive and hold 3,000 baths but it only contained 2,000 - thus is was only filled to two-thirds of its capacity. It is like saying "This gas tank holds 25 gallons; it contains 15 gallons of gas now."

Matthew Henry, the Bible commentator, got it right. He notes: ". There was the molten sea, a very large brass pan, in which they put water for the priests to wash in, v. 2, 6. It was put just at the entrance into the court of the priests, like the font at the church door. If it were filled to the brim, it would hold 3000 baths (as here, v. 5), but ordinarily there were only 2000 baths in it, 1 Ki. 7:26."

There is no real contradiction in the KJB, but a very definite contradiction in the NKJV, NIV and NASB because they did not translate that second Hebrew verb. The other bible versions are false witnesses to the truth. This is only one of many such examples that prove them to be something less than the perfect word of God. By their fruits shall ye know them. "A faithful witness will not lie; but a false witness will utter lies." Proverbs 14:5

Will Kinney
http://www.thywordistrue.com/contradictions/140/Molten_Sea.html

[Quantum]

Here is what the Bible says:

Natural man can't understand the Bible.

1 Corinthians 2
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned .

So, how one could get all the truth?

John 16
I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.
Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth

You can't get it without Holy Spirit,
Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. (John 14)


You just proved my point, thank you!

God's Spirit, not the Bible alone, is required to know the whole Truth.

A blind man or illiterate man can know God's Word as readily - or probably better - than the sighted man, since the Holy Spirit is the means, not a book. For those of us with eyes and knowledge of reading, we have many distractions, including arguing about how "perfect" the King James work of man is.

[greenbear]

So, what should you do if the Holy Spirit tells you one thing, and tells someone else something contradictory? You have no AUTHORITATIVE STANDARD with which to compare your respective "revelations" to. Who's right? And why should anyone believe you just because you say God showed you something? I wouldn't. That sounds like chaos to me. The Holy Spirit brings to my mind this verse:

1 Corinthians 14:33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

[Libertarian_Guard]

http://i44.tinypic.com/140vm2a.jpg

[Libertarian_Guard]

http://i43.tinypic.com/vsg87r.jpg

[Libertarian_Guard]

http://i39.tinypic.com/16gde2f.jpg


http://i42.tinypic.com/vhcm4p.jpg



http://i42.tinypic.com/2q3nrt2.jpg


http://i39.tinypic.com/24v8svl.jpg



http://i43.tinypic.com/11jvrsl.jpg



These are from my favorite Early Renaissance painter, Carlo Crivelli.

[Quantum]

So, what should you do if the Holy Spirit tells you one thing, and tells someone else something contradictory? You have no AUTHORITATIVE STANDARD with which to compare your respective "revelations" to. Who's right? And why should anyone believe you just because you say God showed you something? I wouldn't. That sounds like chaos to me. The Holy Spirit brings to my mind this verse:

1 Corinthians 14:33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.


The Holy Spirit didn't bring that to your mind; your own arrogance did.

"Think not that I came to send peace on the earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law: and a man's foes shall be they of his own household."

Jesus Christ, at Matthew 10:34-36

greenbear, you prooftext something, and there's almost always something to counter it. Prooftexting serves not God.

Stop arguing about details that have caused people to squabble meaninglessly for nearly two millennia, and focus on Christ Himself. You're good at that; regarding politics, not so much.

[Quantum]

A man dissatisfied with his life decided to consult the Bible for guidance. Closing his eyes, he flipped the book open and pointed to a spot on the page. Opening his eyes, he read the verse under his finger. It read, "Then Judas went away and hanged himself" (Matthew 27:5b) Closing his eyes again, the man randomly selected another verse. This one read, "Jesus told him, 'Go and do likewise.'" (Luke 10:37b)

[7th trump]

So, what should you do if the Holy Spirit tells you one thing, and tells someone else something contradictory? You have no AUTHORITATIVE STANDARD with which to compare your respective "revelations" to. Who's right? And why should anyone believe you just because you say God showed you something? I wouldn't. That sounds like chaos to me. The Holy Spirit brings to my mind this verse:

1 Corinthians 14:33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.


The Holy Spirit didn't bring that to your mind; your own arrogance did.

"Think not that I came to send peace on the earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law: and a man's foes shall be they of his own household."

Jesus Christ, at Matthew 10:34-36

greenbear, you prooftext something, and there's almost always something to counter it. Prooftexting serves not God.

Stop arguing about details that have caused people to squabble meaninglessly for nearly two millennia, and focus on Christ Himself. You're good at that; regarding politics, not so much.



You misquote Matthew Quatum. Matthew 10:34-36 is about what its going to be like in the end times. Its basically explaining how the 144,000 will be witnessing against satan and the world.
So how does Matthew 10:34-36 equate to greenbears comment? Where do you see Matthew correcting greenbear?
Matthew 10:34 has nothing at all to do with greenbears arrogence. Matthew 10:34-36 is basically addressing the 144,000 Elect on what it is going to be like for the 144,000 in those days when satan appears as the false messiah.

You need to go back just a little further and start at Matthew 10:16 to understand the subject of Matthew.

16 Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the middle of wolves: be you therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves. (Who sends you forth as sheep? God telling the disciples he going to send somebody forth as sheep...but who? The Elect are sent forth, not you or the disciples because they are the only ones who know the fake comes first at the 6th trumpet. God is not addressing the world here. Hes addressing the disciples about those who know the truth, the 144,000 Elect.)
17 But beware of men: for they will deliver you up to the councils, and they will whip you in their synagogues; (the kenites at work to keep the truth from coming forth. How many Bibles do you know of that altor the Word? many!)
18 And you shall be brought before governors and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them and the Gentiles. 19 But when they deliver you up (brought before the fake messiah (see Matthew 10:21 below) satan to witness against him), take no thought how or what you shall speak: for it shall be given you in that same hour what you shall speak.
20 For it is not you that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaks in you. ( God speaks through these 144,000 Elect. Thats there purpose. They were preordained from the first earth age that was destroyed because of satans revolt. Nothing new under the sun!)

21 And the brother shall deliver up the brother to death ("death" is just another name of satans many roles as the desolator), and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death. (This says two things. 1. The Elect are just an average flesh person amonst the sea of people, nobody special and they sin like everyone else and repent the same. They have mothers and fathers of blood and flesh. 2. The Elect will go before the fake for God to speak through them by argueing with their kin folk that this jesus is a fake messiah and not to worship satan. Of course the father and mother dont think the 6th trumpet fake is satan so they bring them before the fake jesus (satan) to try and have them converted to beleiving the fake is real. Well...the Elect are not tempted to beleive the fake is real so the hour of temptation spoken of in Revelations is not tempting to them. ( Like I've been preaching to you people. satan is coming to play act as Jesus and theres going to be a church revival like no other. So dont get caught giving suckling to this church revival that satan is going to be heading up. Satan enters peacefully and prosperously ( I have chapter and verse written at home where satan enters peacefully and prosperously if anybody wants it). How do you do that if not fooling the world.)( Also, those "saved" church goers and Bible thumpers who whore after the fake will not go into the Kingdom. They were caught giving suckle to satans church. They've been warned to not give suckle and did anyway and were caught doing so. They dont make it.)
22 And you shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endures to the end shall be saved. ( Dont think for one moment there wont be people these Elect are going to piss off for crashing their party where satan is going to put a chicken in every pot freely. Just think about all those people with extreme dogma who beleive its the real Jesus. yea they are going to look down on you, but the last laugh is on them at the 7th trumpet where they will wish mountians to fall on them to cover their shame of worshipping the devil. The shame of not listening to the word.)

23 But when they persecute you in this city, flee you into another: for truly I say to you, You shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come. (Anybody catch it?????? "Till the son of Man be come" Whats that saying? Any of you reading this smart enough to see that the fake comes first and the real comes after......."till the son of Man be comes")

24 The disciple is not above his master, nor the servant above his lord. 25 It is enough for the disciple that he be as his master, and the servant as his lord. If they have called the master of the house Beelzebub (who is Beelzebub?......its satan for some of you who do not know. Jesus is saying that a servant is not above the master so why is the world whoring after satan (beelzebub) by saying hes the master of the house when Jesus is master? (proof that satan comes first before thereal Christ) .) , how much more shall they call them of his household?

26 Fear them not therefore: for there is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; and hid, that shall not be known. (it all comes out through the Elect by God speaking through them.)
27 What I tell you in darkness, that speak you in light: and what you hear in the ear, that preach you on the housetops.
28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. (better start listening to God and not the traditions of men. The rapture theory is a lie. )
29 Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father.
30 But the very hairs of your head are all numbered.
31 Fear you not therefore, you are of more value than many sparrows. (You hold the truth (some of you anyway) and God will use you. Your life will change for Gods purpose.)

32 Whoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven.
33 But whoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.

34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. 35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. 36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. (when Jesus returns its not going to be pleasant for those who whored after the fake messiah. Jesus will rule with a rod of iron of correction.)

[G2Rad]

why does it say thirty cubits in 1 Kings 7:23

Two apparent contradictions in 1 Kings 7:23. One is mathematical, one is in comparison with 2 Chronicles 4:5 regarding the volume of water in the molten sea. Both cannot be proved to be contradictions, they have logical solutions.


1 Kings 7:23 is one of my favorites.

I carefully studied that one myself.

Factor of 3 turns (http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt09a07.htm) into 3.1415

The stated Pi (3) * 111/106 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_alphabet) (Correction factor) = 3.141509 (Corrected Pi)

± 0.0026 percent deviation from ideal geometrical Pi.

± 0.0008 of a cubit variation from the circumference of an ideal geometrical circle

amazing

[greenbear]

why does it say thirty cubits in 1 Kings 7:23

Two apparent contradictions in 1 Kings 7:23. One is mathematical, one is in comparison with 2 Chronicles 4:5 regarding the volume of water in the molten sea. Both cannot be proved to be contradictions, they have logical solutions.


1 Kings 7:23 is one of my favorites.

I carefully studied that one myself.

Factor of 3 turns (http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt09a07.htm) into 3.1415

The stated Pi (3) * 111/106 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_alphabet) (Correction factor) = 3.141509 (Corrected Pi)

± 0.0026 percent deviation from ideal geometrical Pi.

± 0.0008 of a cubit variation from the circumference of an ideal geometrical circle

amazing


It's a whole lot easier defending the Bible when exclusively using and defending the KJB, and just agreeing with the critics that the modern English versions are full of errors. :) Bible critics will get little argument from me on that point. If there's an apparent contradiction, or just something I don't understand, I am persuaded that the problem lies with my understanding, there's something I'm missing. I put it on a list (usually mental) and many times the answer will be revealed at a later time, sometimes years later. I love God's word.

[greenbear]

There have been a number of unfounded, speculative statements made on this thread by critics of the Bible. I don't have time or desire to address everything everybody says, but some subjects are more important than others, and this does go back to the OP. I would guess that most people believe what they want to believe regardless of the facts, so facts do not make a difference to them. One could spend a lifetime refuting every argument, and there would still be no end to it because they do not care about reality, they want to believe lies, for whatever reason. The truth is that the Roman Catholic Church did not give us the Bible, or decide what books are inspired. This was decided long before the Council of Nicea, or any other council. The RC Bible is not even the same as the KJB, and it based largely on the Minority Text, just as other modern English Bibles.

Textus Receptus

Before we consider the King James Version (KJV) and a few of the modern translations in use today, let us first consider certain Greek texts from which all New Testament translations are derived. Foremost amongst these is the Traditional Received Text (Textus Receptus), also called the Byzantine Text or the Majority Text because it is based on the vast majority of manuscripts still in existence. These extant manuscripts (MSS) were brought together by various editors such as Lucian (AD 250-312), Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza and the Elzevir brothers to form the text known as Textus Receptus, the name given to the Majority Text in the 17th century. The most notable editor of all was Desiderius Erasmus (1466-1536) one of the greatest scholars the world has ever known. When the early Protestant Reformers of the 16th and 17th centuries decided to translate the scriptures directly from Greek into the languages of Europe, they selected Textus Receptus as their foundation Greek document. It is vitally important to understand why they did so.

Wilkinson writes in his book Truth Triumphant:
Quote: "The Protestant denominations are built upon that manuscript of the Greek New Testament sometimes called Textus Receptus, or the Received Text. It is that Greek New Testament from which the writings of the apostles in Greek have been translated into English, German, Dutch and other languages. During the dark ages the Received Text was practically unknown outside the Greek Church. It was restored to Christendom by the labours of that great scholar Erasmus. It is altogether too little known that the real editor of the Received Text was Lucian. None of Lucian's enemies fails to credit him with this work. Neither Lucian nor Erasmus, but rather the apostles, wrote the Greek New Testament. However, Lucian's day was an age of apostasy when a flood of depravations was systematically attempting to devastate both the Bible manuscripts and Bible theology. Origen, of the Alexandrian college, made his editions and commentaries of the Bible a secure retreat for all errors, and deformed them with philosophical speculations introducing casuistry and lying. Lucian's unrivalled success in verifying, safeguarding, and transmitting those divine writings left a heritage for which all generations should be thankful." (Ref: J2)
The King James Bible Old Testament was translated from the Ben Chayyim Masoretic Text; named after Jacob ben Chayyim, under whose editorship it was printed in in 1524-5).

Two Bibles
In his book Which Bible? David Otis Fuller says this about Textus Receptus. Carefully note Fuller's first point that all churches (we could now add all Bible students) fall into one of two basic study categories:

* Those who use a variety of Bibles influenced by the Minority Text (the Nestle/Aland Text). For 45 years I was in this camp; but I thank God for opening my eyes.
* Those who only study Bibles based on the Majority Text, from which came the Received Text - Textus Receptus. I have now joined this camp.

Fuller continues:
Quote: "First of all, the Textus Receptus was the Bible of early Eastern Christianity. Later it was adopted as the official text of the Greek Catholic Church. There were local reasons which contributed to this result. But, probably, far greater reasons will be found in the fact that the Received Text had authority enough to become, either in itself or by its translation, the Bible of the great Syrian Church; of the Waldensian Church of northern Italy; of the Gallic Church in southern France; and of the Celtic Church in Scotland and Ireland; as well as the official Bible of the Greek Catholic Church.
All these churches, some earlier, some later, were in opposition to the Church of Rome and at a time when the Received Text and these Bibles of the Constantine type were rivals. They, as represented in their descendants, are rivals to this day. The Church of Rome built on the Eusebio-Origen type of Bible; these others built on the Received Text. Therefore, because they themselves believed that the Received Text was the true apostolic Bible, and further, because the Church of Rome arrogated to itself the power to choose a Bible which bore the marks of systematic depravation, we have the testimony of these five churches to the authenticity and the apostolicity of the Received Text." ( Ref: F1)

Why did the early churches of the 2 nd and 3rd centuries and all the Protestant Reformers of the 15th, 16th and 17th centuries choose Textus Receptus in preference to the Minority Text?
The answer is because:

* Textus Receptus is based on the vast majority (90%) of the 5000+ Greek manuscripts in existence. That is why it is also called the Majority Text.
* Textus Receptus is not mutilated with deletions, additions and amendments, as is the Minority Text.
* Textus Receptus agrees with the earliest versions of the Bible: Peshitta (AD150) Old Latin Vulgate (AD157), the Italic Bible (AD157) etc. These Bibles were produced some 200 years before the minority Egyptian codices favoured by the Roman Church. Remember this vital point.
* Textus Receptus agrees wih the vast majority of the 86,000+ citations from scripture by the early church fathers.
* Textus Receptus is untainted with Egyptian philosophy and unbelief.
* Textus Receptus strongly upholds the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith: the creation account in Genesis, the divinity of Jesus Christ, the virgin birth, the Saviour's miracles, his bodily resurrection, his literal return and the cleansing power of his blood!
* Textus Receptus was - and still is - the enemy of the Roman Church. This is an important fact to bear in mind.

Reverend Gipp comments further:
Quote: "The Majority Text has been known throughout history by several names. It has been known as the Byzantine text, the Imperial Text, the Traditional Text and the Reformation Text as well as the Majority Text. This text culminates in the TEXTUS RECEPTUS or Received Text which is the basis for the King James Bible, which we know also as the Authorized Version....We describe this text with the term "Universal," because it represents the majority of extant MSS which represent the original autographs. Professor Hodges of Dallas Theological Seminary explains, "The manuscript of an ancient book will, under any but the most exceptional conditions, multiply in a reasonable regular fashion with the result that the copies nearest the autograph will normally have the largest number of descendants." (Ref:B3)

Continuing from page 66 in Gipp's book:
Quote: "Professor Hodges concludes, 'Thus the Majority text, upon which the King James Version is based, has in reality the strongest claim possible to be regarded as an authentic representation of the original text. This claim is quite independent of any shifting consensus of scholarly judgment about its readings and is based on the objective reality of its dominance in the transmissional history of the New Testament text.' " (Ref:B4)

In his book God Wrote Only One Bible, Jasper J Ray pens the following testimony about Textus Receptus:
Quote: "Wonder of wonders, in the midst of all the present confusion regarding manuscripts, we still have a Bible we can trust. The writing of the Word of God by inspiration is no greater miracle than the miracle of its preservation in the Textus Receptus. All criticism of this text from which was translated the King James Bible, is based upon an unproved hypothesis: i.e. that there are older and more dependable copies of the original Bible manuscripts. No one in nineteen hundred years, has been able to prove that one jot or tittle has been inserted or taken out." (Ref:D3)

In his book Final Authority, William P Grady provides further interesting details about Textus Receptus, the Received Text:
Quote: "For instance, over 5,000 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament exist today ranging from small fragments containing two or three verses to nearly entire Bibles. Their ages vary from the second to the sixteenth century; the manuscripts are ending with the arrival of printing. By comparison, there exist only ten quality manuscripts of Caesar's Gallic War composed between 58-50BC… "Once again, the outstanding features of the Received Text is its high percentage of agreement among so many thousands of independent witnesses. This agreement is often placed at about 90 percent; in other words, 90 percent of all existing manuscripts agree with one another so miraculously that they are able to form their own unique text…

If the critic of your King James Bible is correct in his rejection of the underlying Textus Receptus, then he is also under the greatest pressure to account for its existence. To complain of fabrication is one thing, but to account for its universal prevalence is quite another. Whenever a large body of ancient documents are seen to be in agreement, this inexplicable harmony becomes their greatest evidence for legitimacy. Simple arithmetic confirms that the nearer a particular reading is to the original, the longer the time span will be for descendants to follow. The longer the family is, the older the original source must be."(Ref: E1)

http://atschool.eduweb.co.uk/sbs777/vital/kjv/part1-3.html

[greenbear]

http://atschool.eduweb.co.uk/sbs777/vital/kjv/part1-4.html

Part One...File 4 of 7
9. THE MINORITY TEXTS

There are other extant Greek texts which are referred to as the 'Minority Texts' simply because they represent only about 5% of existing manuscripts. Another 5% are Neutral Texts: sometimes agreeing with the majority and at others with the minority. The 'Minority Texts' are also known as the Alexandrian Texts because they were produced in Alexandria in Egypt. The Minority Texts were rejected by the early Christians and also by all the Protestant Reformers of the 16th and 17th centuries. The Reformers, who were well aware of the existence of the Minority Texts, considered them unfit for translation purposes. These are very important points to bear in mind. Why did the early Christians and the Protestant Reformers reject the Minority Texts?

The answer is:

* The Minority Texts were the work of unbelieving Egyptian scribes who did not accept the Bible as the Word of God or JESUS as the SON of GOD!
* The Minority Texts abound with alterations, often a single manuscript being amended by several different scribes over a period of many years; something the Aaronic priests and Masorites would never have tolerated when making copies of the Scriptures.
* The Minority Texts omit approximately 200 verses from the Scriptures. This is equivalent to 1st and 2nd Peter. Pause and consider that stunning fact!
* The Minority Texts contradict themselves in hundreds of places.
* The Minority Texts are doctrinally weak and often dangerously incorrect.

Proof of these astonishing allegations will follow in Part Two where we will take a close look at some 80+ Bible verses corrupted by the Minority Text.

Yet, startling as it may sound, virtually every modern English Bible relies on the Minority Text as its underlying New Testament text in preference to Textus Receptus! Isn't that an amazing revelation? What brought about this almost incredible switch from the reliable Textus Receptus, beloved by the early Christian church and the Protestant Reformers, to the corrupt minority text favoured by the Roman Catholic Church? It is important that you find out soon: because the modern "Bible" you may be faithfully studying every day is really nothing more than a counterfeit posing as the Word of God! If it is any consolation to you, do remember that I was equally in the dark and totally devastated by my findings.
Misleading Footnotes
Modern translations abound with misleading footnotes, which do little else but cast doubt on the King James Version. Examples are:

* The Hebrew of this line is obscure.
* The meaning of the Hebrew is uncertain - or unknown.
* Other ancient mss add …
* Other ancient mss omit…
* Other ancient mss read …
* Other ancient mss insert …
* Some early mss read…
* The most ancient authorities omit John 7:53 - 8:11
* The best manuscripts omit this verse. (e.g. Matt.17:21, 18:11, 23:14, Mark 7:16, John 5:4)
* Some of the most ancient authorities bring the book (Mark) to a close at the end of Mark 16:8
* Many mss do not contain the remainder of this verse. (e.g. Acts 8:37)
* Many ancient authorities read…
* Not found in most of the old mss.(e.g. John 7:53-8:11)

In this article we will not analyse these footnotes, simply because there are scores of them scattered throughout the modern translations and each has a slightly different slant. However, one thing they all have in common: and that is, they ALL cast doubt on the accuracy of the Authorised King James Bible! By implication they all claim to be more accurate and reliable than the King James Version. In the preface of the Revised Standard Version (RSV) we read this misleading statement. "Yet the King James Version has grave defects." Oh how subtle is Satan, how evil and how sinister! The stunning fact is: the very opposite is true. The King James Version is infinitely more accurate and reliable than ANY modern English translation on the market today. And that is why for nearly 400 years it has had - and continues to have - the blessing of the Almighty God upon it: something no modern version or translation can come anywhere near. Most, after a decade or two, disappear from the book shops, only to re-appear some years later with a few alterations under a new name.

How did it happen that the Minority Text supplanted the trustworthy and respected Textus Receptus which triggered the great Protestant Reformation during which tens of thousands of true believers perished by flame, famine and torture? Who is behind this dangerous deception that has engulfed the Christian Church? Do you know? Do you care? Is it important? Does it really matter?

I most certainly didn't know. But I do believe that it is vitally important that every believer know that Satan is behind it: not any particular Church, its leaders or its members - but the great enemy of souls! He is behind every deception ever aimed at the human race and millions, in and out of the church, believe his lies. I for one had been living in blissful ignorance of the danger for many years; till a massive heart attack laid me flat on my back and I was moved - yea inwardly compelled - to make a deep study of the History of God's Word and how He has providentially preserved it till today.

Now let us turn our attention to the Minority Text's two most prominent manuscripts on which most modern translations of the Bible heavily rely. They are called Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph ) and Codex Vaticanus (B). The word 'codex,' incidentally, means that the manuscript is in book form, with pages, as opposed to being a scroll. But first a little about the man whom God raised up over 150 years ago to expose the errors of the Minority Texts. His name is John Burgon.
Dean John William Burgon
John Burgon was undoubtedly one of the greatest defenders of the Greek text of the New Testament. He exposed the hundreds of amendments, deletions and additions in the Minority Text and defended the reliability of Textus Receptus till the day of his death. Unlike most Bible students and ministers of today, John Burgon was a masterful Greek scholar of the highest rank who spent much of his life browsing through the museums and libraries of Europe examining the ancient Greek manuscripts. He had first hand experience examining the Vatican texts whilst he ministered as a chaplain to a congregation in Rome. His findings are of utmost value in these days of wilful, spiritual ignorance and sin. I will quote a few extracts about this magnificent warrior from David O Fuller's book Which Bible?
Quote: "John William Burgon was born August 21, 1813. He matriculated at Oxford in 1841, taking several high honours there, and his B.A. 1845. He took his M.A. there in 1848…the thing about Burgon, however, which lifts him out of the nineteenth century English setting and endears him to the hearts of earnest Christians of other lands and other ages is his steadfast defence of the scriptures as the infallible Word of God. He strove with all his power to arrest the modernistic currents which during his lifetime had begun to flow within the Church of England, continuing his efforts with unabated zeal up to the very day of his death. With this purpose in mind he laboured mightily in the field of New Testament textual criticism.

In 1860, while temporary chaplain of the English congregation at Rome, he made a personal examination of Codex B (Vaticanus), and in 1862 he inspected the treasures of St. Catherine's Convent on Mt. Sinai. Later he made several tours of European libraries, examining and collating New Testament manuscripts wherever he went…Of all the critics of the nineteenth century Burgon alone was consistently Christian in his vindication of the Divine inspiration and providential preservation of the text of Holy Scripture…

Burgon regarded the good state of preservation of B (Codex Vaticanus) and Aleph (Codex Sinaiticus) in spite of their exceptional age as proof not of their goodness but of their badness. If they had been good manuscripts, they would have been read to pieces long ago. We suspect that these two manuscripts are indebted for their preservation, solely to their ascertained evil character; which has occasioned that the one eventually found its way, four centuries ago, to a forgotten shelf in the Vatican Library; while the other, after exercising the ingenuity of several generations of critical Correctors, eventually (viz. in A.D.1844) got deposited in the wastepaper basket of the Convent at the foot of Mount Sinai.

Had B (Vaticanus) and Aleph (Sinaiticus) been copies of average purity, they must long since have shared the inevitable fate of books which are freely used and highly prized; namely, they would have fallen into decadence and disappeared from sight. Thus the fact that B and Aleph are so old is a point against them, not something in their favour.
It shows that the Church rejected them and did not read them. Otherwise they would have worn out and disappeared through much reading.

For an orthodox Christian Burgon's view is the only reasonable one. If we believe that God gave the Church guidance in regard to the New Testament books, then surely it is logical to believe that God gave the church similar guidance in regard to the text which these books contained…

Who but those with Roman Catholic sympathies could ever be pleased with the notion that God preserved the true New Testament text in secret for almost one thousand years and then finally handed it over to the Roman pontiff for safekeeping? Surely every orthodox Protestant will prefer to think with Burgon that God preserved the true text of the Greek New Testament in the usage of the Greek-speaking Church down through the centuries and then delivered it up intact to the Protestant reformers." (Ref:F11)
Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph)
This codex was produced in the 4th century. In his book Let's Weigh the Evidence, Barry Burton writes of Codex Sinaiticus:
Quote: "The Sinaiticus is a manuscript that was found in 1844 in a trash pile in St.Catherine's Monastery near Mt. Sinai, by a man named Mr Tischendorf. It contains nearly all of the New Testament plus it adds the 'Shepherd of Hermes' and the 'Epistle of Barnabas' to the New Testament. The Sinaiticus is extremely unreliable, proven by examining the manuscript itself. John Burgon spent years examining every available manuscript of the New Testament. He writes about Sinaiticus...

'On many occasions 10, 20, 30, 40 words are dropped through very carelessness. Letters, words or even whole sentences are frequently written twice over, or begun and immediately cancelled; while that gross blunder, whereby a clause is omitted because it happens to end in the same words as the clause preceding, occurs no less than 115 times in the New Testament.
THAT'S NOT ALL!
On nearly every page of the manuscript there are corrections and revisions, done by 10 different people. Some of these corrections were made about the same time that it was copied, but most of them were made in the 6th and 7th century.
… Phillip Mauro, a brilliant lawyer who was admitted to the bar of the US Supreme Court in April 1892, wrote a book called "Which Version" in the early 1900s. He writes concerning the Sinaiticus… 'From these facts, therefore, we declare: first that the impurity of the Codex Sinaiticus, in every part of it, was fully recognized by those who were best acquainted with it, and that from the very beginning until the time when it was finally cast aside as worthless for any practical purpose.' " (Ref:C1)

In his excellent book An Understandable History Of The Bible, Rev. Samuel Gipp writes of Codex Sinaiticus:
Quote: "One of the MSS is called Sinaiticus and is represented by the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet, Aleph. This MS from all outward appearances looks very beautiful. It is written in book form (codex) on vellum. It contains 147 1/2 leaves. The pages are 15" by 13 1/2" with four columns of 48 lines per page. It contains many spurious books such as the 'Shepherd of Hermes,' the 'Epistle of Barnabas' and even the Didache.

The great Greek scholar, Dr Scrivener, points this out in his historic work A Full Collation of the Codex Sinaiticus. He speaks of correctional alterations made to the MS: 'The Codex is covered with such alterations... brought in by at least ten different revisers, some of them systematically spread over every page, others occasional or limited to separated portions of the MS, many of these being contemporaneous with the first writer, but the greater part belonging to the sixth or seventh century.' " (Ref:B5)

to be continued

[greenbear]

continued

Codex Vaticanus (B)
The second major manuscript of the Minority Text is known as Codex Vaticanus, often referred to as 'B'. This codex was also produced in the 4th century. It was found over a thousand years later in 1481 in the Vatican library in Rome, where it is currently held. It is written on expensive vellum, a fine parchment originally from the skin of calf or antelope. Some authorities claim that it was one of a batch of 50 Bibles ordered from Egypt by the Roman Emperor Constantine; hence its beautiful appearance and the expensive skins which were used for its pages. But alas! this manuscript, like its corrupt Egyptian partner Sinaiticus (Aleph) is also riddled with omissions, insertions and amendments.

Of Codex Vaticanus Samuel Gipp writes on page 72:
Quote: "This codex omits many portions of Scripture vital to Christian doctrine. Vaticanus omits Genesis 1.1 through Genesis 46:28; Psalms 106 through 138; Matthew 16:2,3; Romans 16:24; the Pauline Pastoral Epistles; Revelation; and everything in Hebrews after 9:14.

It seems suspicious indeed that a MS possessed by the Roman Catholic church omits the portion of the book of Hebrews which exposes the 'mass' as totally useless (Please read Hebrews 10:10-12). The 'mass' in conjunction with the false doctrine of purgatory go hand-in-hand to form a perpetual money making machine for Rome. Without one or the other, the Roman Catholic Church would go broke!

It also omits portions of the Scripture telling of the creation (Genesis), the prophetic details of the crucifixion (Psalm 22), and, of course, the portion which prophesies of the destruction of Babylon (Rome), the great whore of Revelation chapter 17.

Vaticanus , though intact physically, is found to be in poor literary quality. Dr Martin declares, 'B' exhibits numerous places where the scribe has written the same word or phrase twice in succession. Dr J Smythe states, 'From one end to the other, the whole manuscript has been travelled over by the pen of some… scribe of about the tenth century.' If Vaticanus was considered a trustworthy text originally, the mass of corrections and scribal changes obviously render its testimony highly suspicious and questionable."

Rev. Gipp continues on page 73:
Quote: "The corrupt and unreliable nature of these two MSS (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus) is best summed up by one who has thoroughly examined them, John W Burgon: 'The impurity of the text exhibited by these codices is not a question of opinion but fact...In the Gospels alone, Codex B(Vatican) leaves out words or whole clauses no less than 1,491 times. It bears traces of careless transcriptions on every page…

If we are to be thorough and discriminatory in our evaluation of the true New Testament text, then we must not -- we cannot -- overlook these facts.' How did these MSS come into being? How did it happen that they should be beautiful to the eye, yet within contain such vile and devastating corruption? It seems that these uncial MSS along with the papyrus MSS included in this category all resulted from a revision of the true, or Universal Text. This revision was enacted in Egypt by Egyptian scribes! " (Ref:B6)

Rev. Gipp continues:
Quote: "So we see that once a pure copy of the Universal Text (Textus Receptus) had been carried down into Egypt, it was recopied. During the process of this recopying, it was revised by men who did not revere it as truly the Word of God. This text was examined by the critical eye of Greek philosophy and Egyptian morals. These men saw nothing wrong with putting the Book in subjection to their opinion instead of their opinion being in subjection to the book. This process produced a text which was local to the educational centre of Alexandria, Egypt. This text went no further than southern Italy where the Roman Catholic Church found its unstable character perfect for overthrowing the true Word of God which was being used universally by the true Christians." (Ref:B7)

The Westminster Dictionary of the Bible has this to say about Codex Vaticanus (B) on page 624 under the article Versions.
Quote: " It should be noted, however, that there is no prominent Biblical MS. in which there occur such gross cases of misspelling, faulty grammar, and omission, as in B." (Ref:H2)

Barry Burton comments further:
Quote: "For one thing…Vaticanus and Sinaiticus disagree with each other over 3000 times in the gospels alone…
Facts about the Vaticanus.

"It was written on fine vellum (tanned animal skins) and remains in excellent condition. It was found in the Vatican Library in 1481 AD. In spite of being in excellent condition, it omits Genesis 1:1-Gen.46:28, Psalm 106-138, Matt.16:2-3, the Pauline pastoral Epistles, Hebrews 9:14-13:25, and all of Revelation. These parts were probably left out on purpose."

"Besides all that - in the gospels alone it leaves out 237 words, 452 clauses and 748 whole sentences, which hundreds of later copies agree together as having the same words in the same places, the same clauses in the same places and the same sentences in the same places... The Vaticanus was available to the translators of the King James Bible, but they did not use it because they knew it is unreliable." (Ref:C2)

Dean Burgon comments on Codices Sinaiticus (Aleph)and Vaticanus.
Quote: "Compromise of any sort between the two conflicting parties, is impossible; for they simply contradict one another. Codd.B and Aleph are either amongst the purist of manuscripts,- or else they are among the very foulest. The Text of Drs.Westcott and Hort is either the very best which has ever appeared,- or else it is the very worst; the nearest to the sacred Autographs,- or furthest from them."… "There is no room for both opinions; and there cannot exist any middle view." (Ref: P3)

Oldest and Best
Bible students are often told that Codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are older and better than other manuscripts: the implication being that they must, therefore, be more accurate. But this conclusion is wrong. We have already seen how Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are corrupt beyond measure. To be sure they are 'better' in appearance, but certainly not in their content. Remember they are written on expensive vellum; so they ought to be in good shape. They are older, but older than what? They are older than other Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. But they are not older than the earliest versions of the Bible: the Peshitta, Italic, Waldensian and the Old Latin Vulgate: versions which agree with the Majority text. These ancient versions are some 200 years older than Aleph and B. Yes Aleph and B are older than other Greek mss, but for anyone to suggest that they are more accurate is absurd. It is like someone saying 'You will find the greatest TRUTH being preached in the oldest and most beautiful cathedrals of the world,' or, 'the most beautiful women have the best characters.'

In his masterful book Revision Revised Dean Burgon wrote, over a hundred years ago, concerning the ages of Codices Vatican (B) and Sinai (Aleph):
Quote: "Lastly, - We suspect that these two Manuscripts are indebted for their preservation, solely to their ascertained evil character, which has occasioned that the one eventually found its way, four centuries ago, to a forgotten shelf in the Vatican library; while the other, after exercising the ingenuity of several generations of critical Correctors, eventually (viz. in A.D. 1844) got deposited in the waste-paper basket of the Convent at the foot of mount Sinai. Had B and Aleph been copies of average purity, they must long since have shared the inevitable fate of books which are freely used and highly prized; namely, they would have fallen into decadence and disappeared from sight." (Ref: P1)

In short these two codices are old simply because:

* First: They were written on extremely expensive and durable antelope skins.
* Second: They were so full of errors, alterations, additions and deletions, that they were never used by true believers and seldom even by their own custodians. Thus they had little chance of wearing away.

Can any true believer imagine JEHOVAH, the Holy One of Israel, hiding Codex Vaticanus away for over 1000 years in the Vatican Library till 1481? or prompting the deeply religious monks of St Catherine's Monastery to dump Sinaiticus into a waste basket? The very idea is ridiculous.

A vital fact to remember is that though codices Aleph and B (produced in the 4th century) are older than other Greek manuscript copies of the Scriptures, they are not older than the Peshitta, Italic, the Old Latin Vulgate and the Waldensian versions which were produced 200 years earlier in the 2nd century. All these versions, copies of which are still in existence, agree with Textus Receptus, the underlying text of the King James Bible. I repeat: these ancient versions are some 200 years older than Vaticanus and Sinaiticus: so the 'oldest is best' argument should not be used. All Bibles fall, basically, into one of two categories.

* Those based on the Majority Text. (Textus Receptus)
* Those based on the Minority Text. (Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus etc.)

Which Bible you select for study each day is going to have an enormous effect on your spiritual growth and well being. Bear this vital fact in mind.
The Invention of Printing
The invention of the printing press in the 15th century was a giant step forward in the circulation of the Bible. The printing press reduced the time taken to produce a Bible from about nine or ten months to a few hours: and once proof reading had been done, every copy was as good as the master. Printing also greatly reduced the price of a Bible.

"In the reign of Edward 1 of England, about 1272, the price of a complete (hand-written) Bible was from £30 to £37, and occupied a careful scribe in his scriptorium about ten months, while the days wage of a working man only averaged 1.5 pennies. When it is borne in mind that it only cost £25 to build two arches of London Bridge in 1240, while the price of a complete Latin Bible was considerably more, it will readily be allowed that only the rich and scholarly had access to the Word of God."

"While Martin Luther called the art of printing 'the last and best gift of providence' the Catholic Rowland Phillips, in a sermon preached at St.Paul's Cross, London in the year 1535, frightfully remarked:
'We must root out printing
or printing will root us out.' "
(Ref:E3)

If printing, rightly used, could do so much to spread Truth, who can imagine the potential for the spread of Truth on the Internet? :)

[Quantum]

unfounded, speculative statements made on this thread by critics of the Bible.


NO, I have made statements critical of your interpretations of the Bible.

I prefer the King James Version. I do not worship it. I do not regard it as perfect. Anyone who regards it as perfect is an idolater.

[StreetsOfGold]

It does violence to the Biblical doctrine of eternal security of the believer.


There is no "Biblical doctrine of eternal security."

Those who believe in Jesus Christ are saved. If someone stops believing in Christ, for example, maliciously denounces Him as a myth, they can no longer count on being written in the Book of Life. Reference John 3:16, for example.

"Eternal security" is a Calvinist heresy. It is the foundation of the "do as thou wilt" attitude among so-called "Christians" today.


You mean the phrase "eternal security" is not mentioned? The doctrine IS there for those who trust Jesus Christ as their Saviour and are born again. You cannot be UNborn, that's an impossibility. Once you are born of God's SEED you will ALWAYS be OF God's SEED. You "may" do something your father does not like but you are still born of his seed. In fact, I am PART of Jesus Christ literally
Ephesians 5:30 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.

[StreetsOfGold]

unfounded, speculative statements made on this thread by critics of the Bible.


NO, I have made statements critical of your interpretations of the Bible.

I prefer the King James Version. I do not worship it. I do not regard it as perfect. Anyone who regards it as perfect is an idolater.


regarding the Bible (I hold IN MY HAND) as being PERFECT is idolatry?? That's what UNsved folks think of the Bible! Shame on you, IF you call yourself a Christian

[G2Rad]

You mean the phrase "eternal security" is not mentioned? The doctrine IS there for those who trust Jesus Christ as their Saviour and are born again. You cannot be UNborn, that's an impossibility. Once you are born of God's SEED you will ALWAYS be OF God's SEED. You "may" do something your father does not like but you are still born of his seed. In fact, I am PART of Jesus Christ literally
Ephesians 5:30 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.


Amen to that

:)

1 Jn 5:11 -13
And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.
He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.
These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.

[7th trump]

You mean the phrase "eternal security" is not mentioned? The doctrine IS there for those who trust Jesus Christ as their Saviour and are born again. You cannot be UNborn, that's an impossibility. Once you are born of God's SEED you will ALWAYS be OF God's SEED. You "may" do something your father does not like but you are still born of his seed. In fact, I am PART of Jesus Christ literally
Ephesians 5:30 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.


Amen to that

:)

1 Jn 5:11 -13
And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.
He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.
These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.

Really? You think just because you are born of Gods seed you cannot lose it?
What if you get hooked on drugs and one day you find yourself in a position that the drug now control your life and you dont have enough self esteem or dicipline to over come the addiction and you eventually murder for a measley 10.00 for you next fix..................then what?
You think God is going to allow you into the Kingdom just because you are born of His seed and commited murder over a bad choice of doing drugs?
You better think twice because if you are caught worshipping the anti-christ and went to church all your life you wont be going anywhere except to the bad side of the gulf to be ruled with a rod of iron and havent yet put on immortality.

[StackerKen]

John 10:28 (

28And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand

[G2Rad]

Before calling people idol-worshipers please consider this:

Psalm 138:2
... for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.


do you call Him ... too???

God forbid.

[greenbear]

I love you guys, G2Rad, StackerKen, Streets of Gold. :) Thanks for your posts.

[StackerKen]

Love you too Sister ;D

[greenbear]

Love you too Sister ;D
;D

[Quantum]

regarding the Bible (I hold IN MY HAND) as being PERFECT is idolatry??


Yes, that is correct.




That's what UNsved folks think of the Bible!


You are an idolater. Are you a Judeo-"Christian" as well?




Shame on you, IF you call yourself a Christian


I call myself not only a Christian, but a lover of Truth. Sorry I've blasphemed your object of devotion (a man-printed book).

[Quantum]

John 10:28 (

28And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand


Those who wish to be cut off from God remove themselves from God's family.

Ken, you're prooftexting.

[StackerKen]

John 10:28 (

28And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand


Those who wish to be cut off from God remove themselves from God's family.

Ken, you're prooftexting.


Maybe...But I don't think so.

How bout these

Romans 8:38–39 (NIV)
38 For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Philippians 1:6
And I am certain that God, who began the good work within you, will continue his work until it is finally finished on the day when Christ Jesus returns.

ETA one more

Jude 24 (NIV)
24 To him who is able to keep you from falling and to present you before his glorious presence without fault and with great joy—

[greenbear]

If the Bible was an idol to me, would I allow it to become tattered and torn, spill coffee on it, throw it carelessly in the back seat of my car? Worse yet, would I let my cats play with the little ribbon thingy attached to it and get cat slobber all over it? No sir, I would not allow those things to happen to an idol. I would undoubtedly be superstitious about an idol, if I had one. The "ink on paper" is nothing but written language, in this case the written scriptures, that relay information, in this case, the words of holy men as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit uses the Scriptures, in our time they are all together in a book, to speak to us.

Psalms 119:11 Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee.

[greenbear]

John 10:28 (

28And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand


Those who wish to be cut off from God remove themselves from God's family.

Ken, you're prooftexting.


Is a man something? Of course, even a man (or woman) who have been born again cannot separate themselves from the love of God because we are already IN Christ.

Romans 8:38-39 For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

[StackerKen]

John 10:28 (

28And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand


Those who wish to be cut off from God remove themselves from God's family.

Ken, you're prooftexting.


Is a man something? Of course, even a man (or woman) who have been born again cannot separate themselves from the love of God because we are already IN Christ.

Romans 8:38-39 For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.


Yep Thats a good one :)

I quoted that one too above ;D

worth a repeat or two though ;)

[Saul Mine]

Im a simpleman

Can you give me examples of what modern Bibles disagree upon?


Luke 16
22 And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;
23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.

Notice the word "and" in verse 23. It is the Greek work kai and it gives translators fits. It means 'and' but it also means 'also'. According to scholars, verse 22 should have been "the rich man also died, and was buried also in hell (period). The form of "he lift up his eyes" does not exist in English, and the exact translation is a subject of endless fights between the different denominations. Contributing to the difficulty is the fact that Greek had no punctuation, no capital letters, no verse numbers, no chapter headings, etc. All those divisions have been added according to some man's understanding or guesswork. We can't really fault the translators, after all we have had another 400 years to research the matter.

The KJV is the only version that was done according to a king's order to be as accurate as possible specifically to avoid such bickering. In reality, the KJV is almost word for word identical to the earlier Tynsdale version, except that the translators carefully considered every passage. Even so there were many objections from the Catholics, and they finally compromised with two versions: the KJV and the RSV. Where any verse was controversial the KJV puts the RSV translation in the center column and the RSV puts the KJV version in the center column.

BTW you can learn how to sort out such things with How To Enjoy The Bible (http://philologos.org/%5F%5Feb%2Dhtetb/). It's a free download, or you can buy a hard copy in any bible book store.

[7th trump]

Im a simpleman

Can you give me examples of what modern Bibles disagree upon?


Luke 16
22 And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;
23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.

Notice the word "and" in verse 23. It is the Greek work kai and it gives translators fits. It means 'and' but it also means 'also'. According to scholars, verse 22 should have been "the rich man also died, and was buried also in hell (period). The form of "he lift up his eyes" does not exist in English, and the exact translation is a subject of endless fights between the different denominations. Contributing to the difficulty is the fact that Greek had no punctuation, no capital letters, no verse numbers, no chapter headings, etc. All those divisions have been added according to some man's understanding or guesswork. We can't really fault the translators, after all we have had another 400 years to research the matter.

The KJV is the only version that was done according to a king's order to be as accurate as possible specifically to avoid such bickering. In reality, the KJV is almost word for word identical to the earlier Tynsdale version, except that the translators carefully considered every passage. Even so there were many objections from the Catholics, and they finally compromised with two versions: the KJV and the RSV. Where any verse was controversial the KJV puts the RSV translation in the center column and the RSV puts the KJV version in the center column.

BTW you can learn how to sort out such things with How To Enjoy The Bible (http://philologos.org/%5F%5Feb%2Dhtetb/). It's a free download, or you can buy a hard copy in any bible book store.

Saul,
I dont get your logic.
You are attempting to make a mountain out of the ant hill.
Who really cares about "and" meaning "also". My point is it doesnt change a damn thing scripture wise.
The point is the begger and the rich man both died (so what and big deal). Lazarus upon leaving the flesh was carried to the good side of the gulf where Abraham is and all the rest who overcame, even the theif that Jesus said he would see in paradise when Jesus was cruxified.
The rich man was on the bad side of the gulf and being in torment he looked over (lifted up his eyes) to the good side and seen Lazarus embrassing Abraham.
What ever it is you are trying to convey it is not working.
Hell has not been opened yet. The firery pit doesnt open until after the thousand year rule with a rod of iron. Then and only then are the bad thrown in and destroyed from within.

[greenbear]

John 10:28 (

28And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand


Those who wish to be cut off from God remove themselves from God's family.

Ken, you're prooftexting.


Is a man something? Of course, even a man (or woman) who have been born again cannot separate themselves from the love of God because we are already IN Christ.

Romans 8:38-39 For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.


Yep Thats a good one :)

I quoted that one too above ;D

worth a repeat or two though ;)


I noticed that, Ken. I was borrowing your material! :D

[jedemdasseine]

It's not just modern bibles. Ancient Bibles disagreed, too.

The Vulgate, Wyclif's Bible, King Alfred's Bible, etc.

Fæder ure þu þe eart on heofonum, si þin nama gehalgod. To becume þin rice, gewurþe ðin willa, on eorðan swa swa on heofonum. Urne gedæghwamlican hlaf syle us todæg, and forgyf us ure gyltas, swa swa we forgyfað urum gyltendum. And ne gelæd þu us on costnunge, ac alys us of yfele. Soþlice.

I prefer the King James version, but I'm probably not the one to ask.

[sirgonzo420]

It's not just modern bibles. Ancient Bibles disagreed, too.

The Vulgate, Wyclif's Bible, King Alfred's Bible, etc.

Fæder ure þu þe eart on heofonum, si þin nama gehalgod. To becume þin rice, gewurþe ðin willa, on eorðan swa swa on heofonum. Urne gedæghwamlican hlaf syle us todæg, and forgyf us ure gyltas, swa swa we forgyfað urum gyltendum. And ne gelæd þu us on costnunge, ac alys us of yfele. Soþlice.

I prefer the King James version, but I'm probably not the one to ask.


I dig me some Olde Englisc!

[greenbear]

That's worse than reading Chaucer!

[sirgonzo420]

That's worse than reading Chaucer!


Aww it's not too bad:

Fæder ure (Father ours) þu þe eart on heofonum (thou who art in heaven), si þin nama gehalgod (be thine name hallowed). To becume þin rice (to come thine riches), gewurþe ðin willa (worth thine will), on eorðan swa swa on heofonum (on earth as so in heaven). Urne gedæghwamlican hlaf syle us todæg (our daily loaf sell us today), and forgyf us ure gyltas (and forgive us our guilts), swa swa we forgyfað urum gyltendum (as so we forgiveth our guilty). And ne gelæd þu us on costnunge (and not lead us into temptation), ac alys us of yfele (but aloose us of evil). Soþlice. (Soothly)

[jedemdasseine]

Chaucer's not too bad with some glosses.

Who doesn't enjoy the Wife of Bath's tale? ;)

Piers Plowman and Sir Gawain are more of a challenge, though.

The Norman Conquest, Chaucer, the King James Bible, and Shakespeare shaped English into what it is today.

Reading the classics of English, or even anything written before WWII, one may appreciate what a robust, flexible, and precise language English can really be, and how little these strengths are utilized today.

NIV is a disappointment.

[greenbear]

That's worse than reading Chaucer!


Aww it's not too bad:

Fæder ure (Father ours) þu þe eart on heofonum (thou who art in heaven), si þin nama gehalgod (be thine name hallowed). To becume þin rice (to come thine riches), gewurþe ðin willa (worth thine will), on eorðan swa swa on heofonum (on earth as so in heaven). Urne gedæghwamlican hlaf syle us todæg (our daily loaf sell us today), and forgyf us ure gyltas (and forgive us our guilts), swa swa we forgyfað urum gyltendum (as so we forgiveth our guilty). And ne gelæd þu us on costnunge (and not lead us into temptation), ac alys us of yfele (but aloose us of evil). Soþlice. (Soothly)



I always thought "Amen" meant "so be it". Sublime, Smooth Real Truth is very satisfying, as well. Thanks for the Olde English translation, sirgonzo. :)

[greenbear]

Chaucer's not too bad with some glosses.

Who doesn't enjoy the Wife of Bath's tale? ;)

Piers Plowman and Sir Gawain are more of a challenge, though.

The Norman Conquest, Chaucer, the King James Bible, and Shakespeare shaped English into what it is today.

Reading the classics of English, or even anything written before WWII, one may appreciate what a robust, flexible, and precise language English can really be, and how little these strengths are utilized today.

NIV is a disappointment.




Oh, I agree.

The language of the King James Bible is eloquent, graceful, beautiful, much easier to memorize, and it lends itself to a smoother translation from the original languages. Compare the KJB to the Amplified Bible!

[Quantum]

John 10:28 (

28And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand


Those who wish to be cut off from God remove themselves from God's family.

Ken, you're prooftexting.


Is a man something? Of course, even a man (or woman) who have been born again cannot separate themselves from the love of God because we are already IN Christ.

Romans 8:38-39 For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.


"He that endureth to the end, the same shall be saved."

Matthew 10:22

"Blessed is the man that endureth temptation; for when he hath been approved, he shall receive the crown of life, which the Lord promised to them that love him."

James 1:12

[Quantum]

The language of the King James Bible is eloquent, graceful, beautiful, much easier to memorize, and it lends itself to a smoother translation from the original languages. Compare the KJB to the Amplified Bible!


Wow, greenbear, God has given us a new day. I actually agree in totality with what you said here. :o

[greenbear]

John 10:28 (

28And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand


Those who wish to be cut off from God remove themselves from God's family.

Ken, you're prooftexting.


Is a man something? Of course, even a man (or woman) who have been born again cannot separate themselves from the love of God because we are already IN Christ.

Romans 8:38-39 For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.


"He that endureth to the end, the same shall be saved."

Matthew 10:22

"Blessed is the man that endureth temptation; for when he hath been approved, he shall receive the crown of life, which the Lord promised to them that love him."

James 1:12



Even Coventantalists can discern the doctrine of eternal salvation, without the benefit of a dispensational understanding of the Scriptures. A dispensational method of study resolves apparent contradictions. God's word is sooth and soblise, any apparent contradictions or mistakes are nothing more than user error.

[Saul Mine]

Im a simpleman

Can you give me examples of what modern Bibles disagree upon?


Luke 16
22 And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;
23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.

Notice the word "and" in verse 23. It is the Greek work kai and it gives translators fits. It means 'and' but it also means 'also'. According to scholars, verse 22 should have been "the rich man also died, and was buried also in hell (period). The form of "he lift up his eyes" does not exist in English, and the exact translation is a subject of endless fights between the different denominations. Contributing to the difficulty is the fact that Greek had no punctuation, no capital letters, no verse numbers, no chapter headings, etc. All those divisions have been added according to some man's understanding or guesswork. We can't really fault the translators, after all we have had another 400 years to research the matter.

The KJV is the only version that was done according to a king's order to be as accurate as possible specifically to avoid such bickering. In reality, the KJV is almost word for word identical to the earlier Tynsdale version, except that the translators carefully considered every passage. Even so there were many objections from the Catholics, and they finally compromised with two versions: the KJV and the RSV. Where any verse was controversial the KJV puts the RSV translation in the center column and the RSV puts the KJV version in the center column.

BTW you can learn how to sort out such things with How To Enjoy The Bible (http://philologos.org/%5F%5Feb%2Dhtetb/). It's a free download, or you can buy a hard copy in any bible book store.

Saul,
I dont get your logic.
You are attempting to make a mountain out of the ant hill.
Who really cares about "and" meaning "also". My point is it doesnt change a damn thing scripture wise.
The point is the begger and the rich man both died (so what and big deal). Lazarus upon leaving the flesh was carried to the good side of the gulf where Abraham is and all the rest who overcame, even the theif that Jesus said he would see in paradise when Jesus was cruxified.
The rich man was on the bad side of the gulf and being in torment he looked over (lifted up his eyes) to the good side and seen Lazarus embrassing Abraham.
What ever it is you are trying to convey it is not working.
Hell has not been opened yet. The firery pit doesnt open until after the thousand year rule with a rod of iron. Then and only then are the bad thrown in and destroyed from within.


No, the point is that when that verse is translated one way it supports the notion that people are alive somewhere after death, concerned about the feelings of the living, and possibly able to send messages across the divide. The bible says repeatedly that all three of those points are false. Translated correctly it is obviously a parable, not actually possible.

I could show you dozens of examples of misinterpretations. It may be just one word, but there are people who might burn your church down for disagreeing with their interpretation of it.

[greenbear]

The language of the King James Bible is eloquent, graceful, beautiful, much easier to memorize, and it lends itself to a smoother translation from the original languages. Compare the KJB to the Amplified Bible!


Wow, greenbear, God has given us a new day. I actually agree in totality with what you said here. :o


That must be because I didn't add that the KJB is the perfectly preserved word of God translated into the English language which is THE standard for our time, and it will probably hold that distinction at least until the Millennial reign of Christ on the earth, from David's throne in Jerusalem.

[StackerKen]

:D

[sirgonzo420]

Chaucer's not too bad with some glosses.

Who doesn't enjoy the Wife of Bath's tale? ;)

Piers Plowman and Sir Gawain are more of a challenge, though.

The Norman Conquest, Chaucer, the King James Bible, and Shakespeare shaped English into what it is today.

Reading the classics of English, or even anything written before WWII, one may appreciate what a robust, flexible, and precise language English can really be, and how little these strengths are utilized today.

NIV is a disappointment.




Oh, I agree.

The language of the King James Bible is eloquent, graceful, beautiful, much easier to memorize, and it lends itself to a smoother translation from the original languages. Compare the KJB to the Amplified Bible!


I'm not even a Christian per se, but I do appreciate the beauty and eloquence of the King James Bible. Granted, I don't exactly agree with every word of it (the story of Lot and his daughters was a bit crude IMO, not to mention dashing of babies against rocks and forcing raped women to marry their attackers), but there are some verses of the KJV that I can't help but appreciate:

James 1:25
But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed.

Revelation 3:9
Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.

Ephesians 6:12
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

Proverbs 11:1
A false balance is abomination to the LORD: but a just weight is his delight.

Matthew 21:12
And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves,

[Libertarian_Guard]

http://i47.tinypic.com/jfz24o.jpg

[Libertarian_Guard]

http://i47.tinypic.com/j9sq5t.jpg

[7th trump]

Im a simpleman

Can you give me examples of what modern Bibles disagree upon?


Luke 16
22 And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;
23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.

Notice the word "and" in verse 23. It is the Greek work kai and it gives translators fits. It means 'and' but it also means 'also'. According to scholars, verse 22 should have been "the rich man also died, and was buried also in hell (period). The form of "he lift up his eyes" does not exist in English, and the exact translation is a subject of endless fights between the different denominations. Contributing to the difficulty is the fact that Greek had no punctuation, no capital letters, no verse numbers, no chapter headings, etc. All those divisions have been added according to some man's understanding or guesswork. We can't really fault the translators, after all we have had another 400 years to research the matter.

The KJV is the only version that was done according to a king's order to be as accurate as possible specifically to avoid such bickering. In reality, the KJV is almost word for word identical to the earlier Tynsdale version, except that the translators carefully considered every passage. Even so there were many objections from the Catholics, and they finally compromised with two versions: the KJV and the RSV. Where any verse was controversial the KJV puts the RSV translation in the center column and the RSV puts the KJV version in the center column.

BTW you can learn how to sort out such things with How To Enjoy The Bible (http://philologos.org/%5F%5Feb%2Dhtetb/). It's a free download, or you can buy a hard copy in any bible book store.

Saul,
I dont get your logic.
You are attempting to make a mountain out of the ant hill.
Who really cares about "and" meaning "also". My point is it doesnt change a damn thing scripture wise.
The point is the begger and the rich man both died (so what and big deal). Lazarus upon leaving the flesh was carried to the good side of the gulf where Abraham is and all the rest who overcame, even the theif that Jesus said he would see in paradise when Jesus was cruxified.
The rich man was on the bad side of the gulf and being in torment he looked over (lifted up his eyes) to the good side and seen Lazarus embrassing Abraham.
What ever it is you are trying to convey it is not working.
Hell has not been opened yet. The firery pit doesnt open until after the thousand year rule with a rod of iron. Then and only then are the bad thrown in and destroyed from within.


No, the point is that when that verse is translated one way it supports the notion that people are alive somewhere after death, concerned about the feelings of the living, and possibly able to send messages across the divide. The bible says repeatedly that all three of those points are false. Translated correctly it is obviously a parable, not actually possible.

I could show you dozens of examples of misinterpretations. It may be just one word, but there are people who might burn your church down for disagreeing with their interpretation of it.

By all means show where it says noone is alive after death to us.