PDA

View Full Version : Is the King James Bible Infallible? King James Onlyism Exposed.



Pages : [1] 2

RCLady
December 11th, 2014, 07:57 AM
This is an important video and article. It could also be called, King James Onlyism Exposed. It covers the group of Protestants who believe that the 1611 ‘Authorized Version’ of the King James Bible was perfect and infallible. The points covered in this video also have great relevance to the Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura.

http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/

TUTlvAsLyPM

OCTOBER23
December 11th, 2014, 08:02 AM
The Catholic Church is Totally Pagan like the old Roman Government was

because they adopted all their neighbours Pagan Practices in order to Control them.

They even adopted the Pagan Xmas practice that God hates.

XMAS IS PAGAN

Jer 10:3 For the customs of the people are vain: for one cutteth

a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the axe.

GOD HATES XMAS and the practices of St. Nicolas aka Santa Claus

Re 2:6 But this thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate.

Re 2:15 So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which thing I hate.

Daniel1611
December 11th, 2014, 08:24 PM
Of course the unsaved wicked priest in this video would attack the Word of God. And with false statements and strawman arguments nonetheless. And his unsaved cult would listen to his garbage. It's sickening that these antichrists use the term "Christian" and blaspheme our Lord and Savior with their Satanic doctrine and wicked abominations.

RCLady
December 14th, 2014, 01:31 PM
What is sickening are liars like you who reject clear truth. Like other heretics, you don’t give one example to back up your false allegations. That's because you know you've already been refuted.

Daniel1611
December 14th, 2014, 02:11 PM
What is sickening are liars like you who reject clear truth. Like other heretics, you don’t give one example to back up your false allegations. That's because you know you've already been refuted.

What is the clear truth? Whatever the man in the dress tells you? This man attacks the word of God because he is an unsaved, hell bound, prophet of Satan.

CherubRam
December 14th, 2014, 02:29 PM
The kettle says that the pot is black. :dizzy:

6days
December 14th, 2014, 09:06 PM
TUTlvAsLyPM
There are many other great translations.

Daniel1611
December 14th, 2014, 09:13 PM
There are many other great translations.

Name a great one.

kiwimacahau
March 8th, 2015, 07:02 PM
NASB, NIV, ESB, ASV, REB, NEB, RSV, NRSV, JB, I could go on. Any of these are better than the KJV.

kayaker
March 8th, 2015, 07:55 PM
RCLady... How does the Catholic Bible translate Matthew chapter one, verse 5? You've got my curiosity!

kayaker

wordsponge
March 8th, 2015, 08:18 PM
There are errors and at least one IMPORTANT omission. in the K.J.V.
Honesty will get you places with GOD and Christ
BUT not in the R.C. church.

The best to you and yours...

kayaker
March 9th, 2015, 07:11 PM
RCLady... How does the Catholic Bible translate Matthew chapter one, verse 5? You've got my curiosity!

kayaker

Okay... let me give this a try...

Your Bible:


"Salmon the father of Boaz, whose mother was Rahab. Boaz became the father of Obed, whose mother was Ruth. Obed became the father of Jesse,"

www.usccb.org/bible/matthew/1

versus:

King James Version:


"And Salmon begat Booz of Rachab; and Booz begat Obed of Ruth; and Obed begat Jesse;" Matthew 1:5 KJV

Sooo, your Bible, like many Protestant translations, considers Rahab the harlot in the ancestry of Jesus. While the KJV maintains RaChab to be in the lineage of Jesus, as different as Rachel and Raquel. Might you explain where Leviticus 21:7 KJV, Leviticus 21:14 KJV was ever rescinded?

Rahab would have had to have been about age 60 when she allegedly hooked up with Salmon, according to general timelines. Therefore, Rahab the harlot was NOT RaChab, wife of Salmon, found in the lineage of Jesus. RaHab and RaChab were two distinct women.

Consequently, I'll take the KJV over your Bible, like many Protestant translations, which casts shadows in the ancestry of Jesus, denying the 'name' of Jesus, His ancestry. That's enough for me!

Brag on yours all you wish... it carries forth that old Jewish fable that King David had a harlot in his ancestry. That's not mentioning Ruth being an alleged blood Moabite, contrary to Deuteronomy 23:3, 6, never rescinded, that cost King Solomon a kingdom. Such was the effort to refute the ancestral integrity of Jesus as those alleged "Jewish" mockers knew Jesus was shortly forthcoming.

kayaker

Nick M
March 9th, 2015, 07:17 PM
What is sickening are liars like you who reject clear truth. Like other heretics, you don’t give one example to back up your false allegations. That's because you know you've already been refuted.

Dude, all you did was post a video which is the same as the liberal media telling us to just swallow what they are selling.

Daniel1611
March 9th, 2015, 07:21 PM
Notice the OP attacks not only the KJV, but also solo scripture, which is at the heart of the modern Bible perversions. It's not that they think the KJV is inferior. It's that they don't believe in a preserved Word of God that holds the words of God.

kayaker
March 9th, 2015, 07:26 PM
Notice the OP attacks not only the KJV, but also solo scripture, which is at the heart of the modern Bible perversions. It's not that they think the KJV is inferior. It's that they don't believe in a preserved Word of God that holds the words of God.

Great point, Daniel!

I'll take a KJV solo over a RC Bible and all the copy/paste they can add!

kayaker

6days
March 9th, 2015, 07:27 PM
Notice the OP attacks not only the KJV, but also solo scripture, which is at the heart of the modern Bible perversions. It's not that they think the KJV is inferior. It's that they don't believe in a preserved Word of God that holds the words of God.
Is the New KJV ok with you?
Language change over the course of hundreds of years...
Meaning of words sometimes change.....
Why be opposed to change helps reflect more accurately the old Greek and Hebrew manuscripts?

Base12
March 9th, 2015, 07:30 PM
I listened to the first 15 minutes or so and gave up. Sorry, I tried.

I was hoping there would be verses, but all he talked about was the word 'Authorized'... over and over.

Daniel1611
March 9th, 2015, 07:43 PM
Is the New KJV ok with you?
Language change over the course of hundreds of years...
Meaning of words sometimes change.....
Why be opposed to change helps reflect more accurately the old Greek and Hebrew manuscripts?

My main problem with the NEW KJV is not that people say it makes it "easier to understand." Changing "saith" to "says" isn't a problem. They mean the same thing. The main problem is that it departs from the TR and the Masoretic. It has some different renderings than the KJV that don't agree with the Greek and Hebrew in the TR and Masoretic. I believe the KJV is the words of God in English. I don't want another version.

Bright Raven
March 9th, 2015, 07:45 PM
the Word of God is infallible.

Mocking You
March 9th, 2015, 08:18 PM
My main problem with the NEW KJV is not that people say it makes it "easier to understand." Changing "saith" to "says" isn't a problem. They mean the same thing. The main problem is that it departs from the TR and the Masoretic. It has some different renderings than the KJV that don't agree with the Greek and Hebrew in the TR and Masoretic.

Name one.

6days
March 9th, 2015, 08:21 PM
My main problem with the NEW KJV is not that people say it makes it "easier to understand." Changing "saith" to "says" isn't a problem. They mean the same thing. The main problem is that it departs from the TR and the Masoretic. It has some different renderings than the KJV that don't agree with the Greek and Hebrew in the TR and Masoretic. I believe the KJV is the words of God in English. I don't want another version.
ok...
How about in Genesis 1:28
KJV says "replenish the earth"But the Englisg language has changed. That word used to mean 'FILL'... (not re-fill).
So the KJV 2000 and most modern translations say "fill the earth"
Anyways...No a biggie... We can still be brothers and followers of Christ.

Nick M
March 10th, 2015, 08:08 AM
Of the Word of God is infallible.

Of course it is. His words are persevered. That doesn't mean people don't twist them. Look at all the versions (NIV). Look at TOL, where dead to sin doesn't mean dead to sin.

Mocking You
March 10th, 2015, 06:55 PM
I'm still waiting for one example where the NKJV departs from the TR and Masoretic texts.

intojoy
March 10th, 2015, 07:03 PM
I'm still waiting for one example where the NKJV departs from the TR and Masoretic texts.


Ahh you found another TOL garden.

intojoy
March 10th, 2015, 07:04 PM
Is the New KJV ok with you?

Language change over the course of hundreds of years...

Meaning of words sometimes change.....

Why be opposed to change helps reflect more accurately the old Greek and Hebrew manuscripts?


Here's my list from dr Fruchtenbaum on closest translations
1. Asv 1901
2. NASB
3. NKJV
4. ESV
5. Kjv

Daniel1611
March 10th, 2015, 07:19 PM
I'm still waiting for one example where the NKJV departs from the TR and Masoretic texts.

Titus 3:10, to name one. And aside from its variants from the TR, it's just not as good of a translation. The KJV is much clearer. I'll take the KJV any day.

Nick M
March 10th, 2015, 08:06 PM
Why be opposed to change helps reflect more accurately the old Greek and Hebrew manuscripts?

Did you know....the Lord Jesus Christ did not reference Hebrew manuscripts? The gospels recorded him as saying something a little bit different and the Dead Sea scrolls showed why. And all along they thought he just got it wrong.

English Translation of the Greek Septuagint Bible (http://www.ecmarsh.com/lxx/Genesis/index.htm)

NKJV has mistakes also. Whose faith saves you?

Mocking You
March 10th, 2015, 08:15 PM
Titus 3:10, to name one. And aside from its variants from the TR, it's just not as good of a translation. The KJV is much clearer. I'll take the KJV any day.

So you're saying the NKJV uses the Critical Text for that verse? Or what text do you assert it is using?

Nick M
March 10th, 2015, 08:15 PM
I'm still waiting for one example where the NKJV departs from the TR and Masoretic texts.

Whose faith (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith) saves you? Scroll down for the real meaning and full definition. Not what people thinks it means.

Full Definition of FAITH
1
a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty

b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions

Romans 3

22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:

That is what makes sense. I trust and believe in his fidelity and allegiance. He cannot deny himself.

NKJV
22 even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe. For there is no difference;

And that is a redundancy. Faith in Jesus Christ to all who have faith in Jesus Christ. Makes no sense.

kiwimacahau
March 10th, 2015, 08:34 PM
The KJV is a dated translation. We have access to earlier copies of the mss than did the KJV translators thus modern translations are generally better than it.

Mocking You
March 10th, 2015, 08:44 PM
Whose faith (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith) saves you? Scroll down for the real meaning and full definition. Not what people thinks it means.

Full Definition of FAITH
1
a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty

b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions

Romans 3

22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:

That is what makes sense. I trust and believe in his fidelity and allegiance. He cannot deny himself.

NKJV
22 even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe. For there is no difference;

And that is a redundancy. Faith in Jesus Christ to all who have faith in Jesus Christ. Makes no sense.

Nick, the difference here between the KJV and the NKJV is a translational issue. Daniel1611 asserted, "The main problem is that the NKJV departs from the TR and the Masoretic" which must mean that the NKJV rejects the TR and Masoretic text in favor of a different text in certain verses. That's patently false.

Disagree about the differences in the translation of the TR between the KJV and the NKJV but Daniel1611 doesn't get to say that the NKJV doesn't use the TR.

everready
March 10th, 2015, 09:46 PM
"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." —Hebrews 4:12

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/1611_authorized_king_james.htm

everready

I noticed translations becoming a big thing in the late 60's early 70's isn't that about the time Vatican II began?

kiwimacahau
March 10th, 2015, 10:14 PM
I wouldn't quote from David Stewart's site, the man is seriously strange.

dialm
March 11th, 2015, 02:06 AM
The RCC puts the bible on the level of an officer of the church. It is tradition for them. They are not really attacking the bible. Oh you get some crack pots out there who are over zealous. But the fact is that the RCC must have the bible. It is a control issue. The bible is powerful stuff. Sometimes I think that controlling access might be better. But those situations are very limited. No, for the most part free access is best.

As to which translation, KJ is my favorite but young people just don't seem to care for it.

Infallible: my that is a big four syllables. Where does God end and man begin? Does Satan have any input at all, or do we ignore his abilities?

I try to do what the bible says. And when I fail I place my faith in Christ. All I have ever really done with the bible is read it. I wouldn't even do that if someone didn't take the time to teach me how to read.

Truster
March 11th, 2015, 02:33 AM
No, the KJV is not infallible, but the Holy Spirit that interprets the scriptures for the heirs of promise is infallible.

kayaker
March 11th, 2015, 03:42 PM
The problem here is obviously not the simple change from “saith” to “say”, as Daniel astutely brought to light in his post #18. The problem is renderings dictate diction, the choice of words, as opposed to broader themes dictating diction. Here is a comparison of two verses in Genesis from The Complete Jewish Bible, Catholic Bible, New King James Version, and King James Version. Following are some respective renderings impacted by translation, mine included:

The Complete Jewish Bible:


23 Now Lemech said to his wives, Adah and Zillah, hearken to my voice; wives of Lemech, incline your ears to my words, for I have slain a man by wounding (him) and a child by bruising (him). 24 If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold, then for Lemech it shall be seventy seven fold.

http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/8168/jewish/Chapter-4.htm

Catholic Bible


23 Lamech said to his wives: Adah and Zillah, hear my voice; wives of Lamech, listen to my utterance: I have killed a man for wounding me, a young man for bruising me. 24 If Cain is avenged seven times, then Lamech seventy-seven times.

Http://www.usccb.org/bible/genesis/4

New King James Version:


23 Then Lamech said to his wives: “Adah and Zillah, hear my voice; Wives of Lamech, listen to my speech! For I have killed a man for wounding me, Even a young man for hurting me. 24 If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold, then Lamech seventy-sevenfold.”

http://www.blueletterbible.org/search/search.cfm?t=NKJV&Criteria=%22Lamech%22#s=s_primary_0_1

King James Version:


23 And Lamech said unto his wives, Adah and Zillah, Hear my voice; ye wives of Lamech, Hearken unto my speech: for I have slain a man to my wounding, and a young man to my hurt. 24 If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold, truly Lamech seventy and sevenfold.

http://www.blueletterbible.org/search/search.cfm?t=KJV&Criteria=%22Lamech%22#s=s_primary_0_1

Now, lets take a look at various renderings from said translations…


Jewish rendering(s):


Sixth Aliyah: Lemech accidentally killed his great-great-great-great-grandfather Cain in a hunting accident; the blood of Abel was finally avenged.

http://www.chabad.org/parshah/article_cdo/aid/577241/jewish/Aliyah-Summary.htm


Tubal-Cain’s father, the sixth generation from Cain, was Lemech. Lemech grew old and became blind. One day Tubal-Cain, his youngest son, led him out into the fields to hunt for food. Far off, Tubal-Cain saw something moving that looked like a monstrous animal. He advised the blind Lemech to aim his arrow towards it, and Lemech shot. When they got closer, they discovered to their great sorrow that they had killed Cain.

http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/246607/jewish/Adams-Children.htm



Catholic rendering(s):


Verse 23
Said. This is the most ancient piece of poetry with which we are acquainted. (Fleury.) --- Lamech may be considered as the father of poets. (Haydock) --- I have slain a man, &c. It is the tradition of the Hebrews, that Lamech in hunting slew Cain, mistaking him for a wild beast: and that having discovered what he had done, he beat so unmercifully the youth, by whom he was led into that mistake, that he died of the blows. (Challoner) --- St. Jerome, 9. 1. ad Dam. acknowledges the difficulty of this passage, on which Origen wrote two whole books. (Worthington)

Verse 24
Seventy times. A similar expression occurs, Matthew xviii. 22, to denote a great but indefinite number. God had promised to revenge the murder of Cain seven fold, though he had sinned voluntarily; so Lamech hopes that, as he had acted by mistake, and blinded by passion, in striking the stripling, the son of Tubalcain, he would deserve to be protected still more from falling a prey to the fury of any other. But many reject this tradition as fabulous, unknown to Philo, Josephus, &c. Moses no where mentions the death of Cain. Some, therefore, understand this passage with an interrogation; as if, to convince his wives that his sin was not so enormous as was supposed, he should say, Do not think of leaving me. What! have I killed a young man, as Cain did Abel, and still he is suffered to live unmolested; or have I beaten any one so that I should be punished? Onkelos, in effect, puts a negation to the same purport, "I have not killed, &c.:" (Calmet) others understand this passage, as if Lamech considered his crimes as much more grievous than even those of Cain. (Tirinus)

http://www.studylight.org/commentaries/hcc/view.cgi?bk=0&ch=4


Various and sundry Protestant renderings:

http://biblehub.com/genesis/4-23.htm

We can substantially agree “saith” translates as “says,” but where we go from there becomes rather tangential. Dictionaries do NOT dictate themes… themes dictate diction, the choice of words, while divine inspiration dictates themes. Translations are inspired by one’s theme, while other translations are inspired by their themes. Hence: one’s theme, of greater and lesser inspiration, dictates diction/translation. The simple question arises: Whose theme is more divinely inspired than another’s? How does one justify their theme, BEFORE justifying one’s diction/translation?


My rendering:

The renderings of Genesis 4:23 KJV and Genesis 4:24 KJV are rather simple to my fallable rendering of the KJV translation, which I proffer is the most benign translation affording greatest individually inspired latitude. Cain’s punishment, already merciful, was no procreation (Genesis 4:12 KJV) achieved by Cain being a “fugitive and a vagabond in the earth” (Genesis 4:13 KJV). Therefore, Cain would NOT mix and mingle and die of old age being a fatherless fugitive and vagabond. Cain begged for mercy (Genesis 4:14 KJV) that someone would still find him and kill him, even though God mercifully didn’t. God set a mark upon Cain that he wouldn’t be found out and killed. Consequently, Cain received parole to mix and mingle among folk which opened the door to procreation that God forbade (Genesis 4:12 KJV). If Cain broke parole and sired children, then Cain’s lifespan would be limited to “sevenfold” generations. Cain sired Enoch, and built a city (Genesis 4:17 KJV) contrary to God’s parole (Genesis 4:12 KJV => Genesis 4:15 KJV).

Counting from Satan is generation #1, Cain generation #2, Enoch #3, Irad #4, Methujael #5, Mehusael #6… Lamech is the “sevenfold” generation from Satan, inclusively (Genesis 3:15 KJV, Genesis 4:16, 17). Lamech extended the mark of Cain for a total of “seventy and sevenfold” generations by executing Cain for violating parole (Genesis 4:17 KJV), not for the premeditated murder of Abel. Consequent to carrying out God’s sentence executing his beloved and relatively young great-grandfather (Genesis 4:23 KJV) (Genesis 5:8 KJV), Lamech extended the preservation of Cain’s lineage via the mark for a total of “seventy and sevenfold” generations. Lamech even named a son Tubalcain, which I proffer is in memoriam to Cain (Genesis 4:22 KJV). Furthermore, this opens up the issue of the flood, did Cain’s descendants survive the flood? If so, how?

Thereby, Lamech prophesied the “seventy and sevenfold” arrival generation of God’s Son who could ‘see’ through the veil without condemnation (John 8:15, 16, KJV, John 8:26 KJV), divinely discerning who were Cain’s descendants (John 8:44 KJV, John 8:47 KJV). Go to Luke 3:38 KJV and begin counting generations with God is generation #1, Adam generation #2, Seth #3, and so forth… Jesus is the “seventy and sevenfold” generation from Almighty God, inclusively.

I venture to say that few translations outside the KJV preserve sufficient individual spiritual latitude to grasp the greater themes of God’s Holy Word. I consider other translations and renderings, but the KJV leaves the floor open, so to speak, for the Holy Spirit to speak to INDIVIDUALS. To each their own!

kayaker

Nazaroo
March 11th, 2015, 04:00 PM
NASB, NIV, ESB, ASV, REB, NEB, RSV, NRSV, JB, I could go on. Any of these are better than the KJV.

Every single one of these translations uses a critical Greek text
which mutilates the New Testament by deleting some 200 whole and half-verses.

They did this on the flimsy basis that these were added to the text by
editors and copyists, in part by accident but mostly by intent,
for explanatory purposes or to reinforce or invent favorite doctrines.


However, modern scientific scholarship has shown that these are almost
all simply scribal errors, and accidental omissions mainly by homoioteleuton,
that is, lines were dropped due to similar endings or beginnings.

For the real statistical knowledge about scribal errors, these articles
should be consulted, which show that the general tendency was to omit,
not add text to the New Testament.

General Articles on Errors:
 J. Wetstein (1751): Older MSS (http://pericopedeadultera.org/AE/Wetstein3.html) - Older not = Better!
 J. Burgon (1882): Haplography (http://pericopedeadultera.org/SUPLEM/Burgon-Haplography.html) - mechanics of error
 B. Weiss (1887): Omissions (http://pericopedeadultera.org/AE/Weiss-Omissions.html) - & most common errors
 F.W. Shipley (1904): Dittography (http://pericopedeadultera.org/TEXT/Shipley1.html) - & omissions
 H. Gamble (1977): Interpolation (http://pericopedeadultera.org/AD/Gamble-Interpolation.html) - Identifying Marks
 L. Haines (2008): Scribal Habits (http://pericopedeadultera.org/SUPLEM/Haines-Haplography.html) - 'Shorter Reading'?
 J.Royse (2008) Shorter Reading? (http://pericopedeadultera.org/SUPLEM/Royse-ScribalHabits.html#r05) - & Griesbach
 W. Pickering (2009) Oldest = Best MSS? (http://pericopedeadultera.org/SUPLEM/Pickering-BestMSS.html) - early errors
 T. Holland (2009) "Oldest & Best MSS" (http://pericopedeadultera.org/SUPLEM/Holland-BestMSS.html) - & Byzantine

Errors in Specific MSS:
 B.B. Warfield (1887): Haplography (http://pericopedeadultera.org/SUPLEM/Warfield-Haplography.html) - examples from א
 S. F. Kenyon (1901): Haplography (http://pericopedeadultera.org/SUPLEM/Kenyon-Haplography.html) - more ex. from א/B
 H. von Soden (1911): Omissions (http://pericopedeadultera.org/AG/vonSoden-AB.html) - in Codex א/B
 H.A. Sanders (1912): Haplography (http://pericopedeadultera.org/AA/Sanders-Haplography.html) - in Codex W
 E.C. Colwell (1969): Haplography (http://pericopedeadultera.org/SUPLEM/Colwell-Haplography.html) - & P45, P66, P75
 D.A. Carson (1979) & homoeoteleuton (http://pericopedeadultera.org/SUPLEM/Carson-Haplography.html) - Lk 14:26
 Jongkind (2005): א (http://pericopedeadultera.org/SUPLEM/Jongkind1-2005.html) - tests Singular Readings Method!
 J. Hernandez (2006): Errors of א in Rev (http://pericopedeadultera.org/SUPLEM/Hernandez1.html) - singular OMs
 J. Royse (2008): Scribal Habits (http://pericopedeadultera.org/SUPLEM/Royse-ScribalHabits.html) - P45,46,47,66,72,75
 J. Royse (2008) homoeoteleuton (http://pericopedeadultera.org/SUPLEM/Royse-Haplography.html) - singular omissions
 J. Krans (2010) GA-3 (http://pericopedeadultera.org/AC/GA-3.html) - famous insertion: 2 Cor 8:4
 Scrivener (2010) homoeoteleuton (http://pericopedeadultera.org/AG/P-1780.html) - P-Oxy-1780 new!


For specific information on the actual verses that modern (per)versions
leave out, or place in the margin or footnotes, or bracket as if they were
unreliable or in doubt, or possible additions, look at these examples:



Chart Codes
h.a. = homoioarcton (similar beginning),  

h.t. = homoioteleuton (similar ending)
* = original hand but corrected,   c = corrector,  

uml. = marked with an umlaut
om. = omits text,  
sb. = single brackets around text,   db. = double brackets
WH = Westcott/Hort Greek Text (1882)  

UBS = UBS Greek text (2nd ed. 1965) & 3rd ed.,  
NAS NIV RSV = English translations

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-uRyACZJ_bD4/VQC5s9khXAI/AAAAAAAAHkg/WWQ40uB6Lmw/s1600/Matt-Mark-om.jpg (http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-uRyACZJ_bD4/VQC5s9khXAI/AAAAAAAAHkg/WWQ40uB6Lmw/s1600/Matt-Mark-om.jpg)
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-VPXCHH4oaFs/VQC5tId8KKI/AAAAAAAAHkc/DGx2h7SpZPA/s1600/Luke-om.jpg (http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-VPXCHH4oaFs/VQC5tId8KKI/AAAAAAAAHkc/DGx2h7SpZPA/s1600/Luke-om.jpg)

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-iavbipm9Ceg/VQC5szPNbjI/AAAAAAAAHkY/-aJPrb-GJWs/s1600/John-Acts-om.jpg (http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-iavbipm9Ceg/VQC5szPNbjI/AAAAAAAAHkY/-aJPrb-GJWs/s1600/John-Acts-om.jpg)


http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-1msJYRs4Yzg/VQC5taOqosI/AAAAAAAAHkk/pENU_YB0048/s1600/Romans-Cath-om.jpg (http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-1msJYRs4Yzg/VQC5taOqosI/AAAAAAAAHkk/pENU_YB0048/s1600/Romans-Cath-om.jpg)

To get the full story on any one of these 76 examples, and many more, go to our webpage here:

http://pericopedeadultera.org/AF/Omissions.html

and also consult the Homoioteleuton Blogsite here, which documents many hundreds of examples
where critics have made the wrong choice because they misunderstood the evidence:

http://homoioteleuton.blogspot.ca/
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-1msJYRs4Yzg/VQC5taOqosI/AAAAAAAAHkk/pENU_YB0048/s1600/Romans-Cath-om.jpg)

Nazaroo
March 11th, 2015, 04:18 PM
And as others have pointed out, its not just the 200 missing or mutilated verses in the NT that is wrong with modern versions:

(1) Anti-Semitic Bias from the German "scholarship"
has deeply and disturbingly affected both Catholic and Protestant modern translations:

(http://kjvonly2.blogspot.ca/2011/09/how-germans-perverted-bible.html)How the Germans perverted the Bible (http://kjvonly2.blogspot.ca/2011/09/how-germans-perverted-bible.html)
The NAZIs and the NIV (New International Version) (http://kjvonly2.blogspot.ca/2011/09/nazis-and-niv-new-international-version.html)
Kittel's AntiSemitism and O.T. Sabotage (cont.) (http://kjvonly2.blogspot.ca/2011/10/kittels-antisemitism-and-ot-sabotage.html)


(2) Jewish Anti-Christian bias from modern "Jewish" scholarship
has also unduly influenced modern translations:

Modern Versions and Jewish Fables (http://kjvonly2.blogspot.com/2010/12/modern-versions-and-jewish-fables.html)
The Sabotage of the Christian O.T. in favor of 20th cent. Judaism (http://kjvonly2.blogspot.com/2011/03/sabotage-of-christian-ot-in-favor-of.html)
The Sabotage of the Christian O.T.: (1550-1700) The Hebrew text (http://kjvonly2.blogspot.com/2011/04/more-on-sabotage-of-christian-ot.html)

john w
March 11th, 2015, 04:50 PM
No, the KJV is not infallible, but the Holy Spirit that interprets the scriptures for the heirs of promise is infallible.

Translation: There is no pure, sound, true, certain word of God today, as all we have left is subjectivity(unless you are going to "argue" that all have the same interpretation): " but the Holy Spirit that interprets the scriptures for the heirs of promise is infallible."

"but the Holy Spirit that interprets the scriptures for the heirs of promise is infallible."

=Thanks for saying nothing, as we already know that men do not have a "100% accurate interpretation" of the book. If we did, we'd be God. The issue is the objective words in the scripture, not interpretation. Where can we get a copy of the true, pure, certain, sound......word of God today? Does it have a name? Identify it.

john w
March 11th, 2015, 04:53 PM
The problem here is obviously not the simple change from “saith” to “say”, as Daniel astutely brought to light in his post #18. The problem is renderings dictate diction, the choice of words, as opposed to broader themes dictating diction. Here is a comparison of two verses in Genesis from The Complete Jewish Bible, Catholic Bible, New King James Version, and King James Version. Following are some respective renderings impacted by translation, mine included:

The Complete Jewish Bible:


23 Now Lemech said to his wives, Adah and Zillah, hearken to my voice; wives of Lemech, incline your ears to my words, for I have slain a man by wounding (him) and a child by bruising (him). 24 If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold, then for Lemech it shall be seventy seven fold.

http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/8168/jewish/Chapter-4.htm

Catholic Bible


23 Lamech said to his wives: Adah and Zillah, hear my voice; wives of Lamech, listen to my utterance: I have killed a man for wounding me, a young man for bruising me. 24 If Cain is avenged seven times, then Lamech seventy-seven times.

Http://www.usccb.org/bible/genesis/4

New King James Version:


23 Then Lamech said to his wives: “Adah and Zillah, hear my voice; Wives of Lamech, listen to my speech! For I have killed a man for wounding me, Even a young man for hurting me. 24 If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold, then Lamech seventy-sevenfold.”

http://www.blueletterbible.org/search/search.cfm?t=NKJV&Criteria=%22Lamech%22#s=s_primary_0_1

King James Version:


23 And Lamech said unto his wives, Adah and Zillah, Hear my voice; ye wives of Lamech, Hearken unto my speech: for I have slain a man to my wounding, and a young man to my hurt. 24 If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold, truly Lamech seventy and sevenfold.

http://www.blueletterbible.org/search/search.cfm?t=KJV&Criteria=%22Lamech%22#s=s_primary_0_1

Now, lets take a look at various renderings from said translations…


Jewish rendering(s):



http://www.chabad.org/parshah/article_cdo/aid/577241/jewish/Aliyah-Summary.htm



http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/246607/jewish/Adams-Children.htm



Catholic rendering(s):



http://www.studylight.org/commentaries/hcc/view.cgi?bk=0&ch=4


Various and sundry Protestant renderings:

http://biblehub.com/genesis/4-23.htm

We can substantially agree “saith” translates as “says,” but where we go from there becomes rather tangential. Dictionaries do NOT dictate themes… themes dictate diction, the choice of words, while divine inspiration dictates themes. Translations are inspired by one’s theme, while other translations are inspired by their themes. Hence: one’s theme, of greater and lesser inspiration, dictates diction/translation. The simple question arises: Whose theme is more divinely inspired than another’s? How does one justify their theme, BEFORE justifying one’s diction/translation?


My rendering:

The renderings of Genesis 4:23 KJV and Genesis 4:24 KJV are rather simple to my fallable rendering of the KJV translation, which I proffer is the most benign translation affording greatest individually inspired latitude. Cain’s punishment, already merciful, was no procreation (Genesis 4:12 KJV) achieved by Cain being a “fugitive and a vagabond in the earth” (Genesis 4:13 KJV). Therefore, Cain would NOT mix and mingle and die of old age being a fatherless fugitive and vagabond. Cain begged for mercy (Genesis 4:14 KJV) that someone would still find him and kill him, even though God mercifully didn’t. God set a mark upon Cain that he wouldn’t be found out and killed. Consequently, Cain received parole to mix and mingle among folk which opened the door to procreation that God forbade (Genesis 4:12 KJV). If Cain broke parole and sired children, then Cain’s lifespan would be limited to “sevenfold” generations. Cain sired Enoch, and built a city (Genesis 4:17 KJV) contrary to God’s parole (Genesis 4:12 KJV => Genesis 4:15 KJV).

Counting from Satan is generation #1, Cain generation #2, Enoch #3, Irad #4, Methujael #5, Mehusael #6… Lamech is the “sevenfold” generation from Satan, inclusively (Genesis 3:15 KJV, Genesis 4:16, 17). Lamech extended the mark of Cain for a total of “seventy and sevenfold” generations by executing Cain for violating parole (Genesis 4:17 KJV), not for the premeditated murder of Abel. Consequent to carrying out God’s sentence executing his beloved and relatively young great-grandfather (Genesis 4:23 KJV) (Genesis 5:8 KJV), Lamech extended the preservation of Cain’s lineage via the mark for a total of “seventy and sevenfold” generations. Lamech even named a son Tubalcain, which I proffer is in memoriam to Cain (Genesis 4:22 KJV). Furthermore, this opens up the issue of the flood, did Cain’s descendants survive the flood? If so, how?

Thereby, Lamech prophesied the “seventy and sevenfold” arrival generation of God’s Son who could ‘see’ through the veil without condemnation (John 8:15, 16, KJV, John 8:26 KJV), divinely discerning who were Cain’s descendants (John 8:44 KJV, John 8:47 KJV). Go to Luke 3:38 KJV and begin counting generations with God is generation #1, Adam generation #2, Seth #3, and so forth… Jesus is the “seventy and sevenfold” generation from Almighty God, inclusively.

I venture to say that few translations outside the KJV preserve sufficient individual spiritual latitude to grasp the greater themes of God’s Holy Word. I consider other translations and renderings, but the KJV leaves the floor open, so to speak, for the Holy Spirit to speak to INDIVIDUALS. To each their own!

kayaker

Translation: Here are a bunch of fake, fallible bibles, and I will use them, to correct each other, to arrive at perfection.


=can't be done.

=log in, lose your mind.

everready
March 11th, 2015, 04:59 PM
I wouldn't quote from David Stewart's site, the man is seriously strange.

I've heard that said before, peculiar is another word, kind of makes me remember this when i hear it.

I Peter 2:9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:

10 Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.

His site has quite a few areas of information.

everready

Truster
March 11th, 2015, 05:00 PM
No, the KJV is not infallible, but the Holy Spirit that interprets the scriptures for the heirs of promise is infallible.

As per 1 Corinthians 14:26

How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying.

Interpretation can equally be translated as translation.

john w
March 11th, 2015, 05:39 PM
As per 1 Corinthians 14:26

How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying.

Interpretation can equally be translated as translation.

No-the bible is correct-the objective word is "interpretation." Leave the objective words alone. The bible is to correct you, not vice versa.




Where can we get a copy of the true, pure, certain, sound......word of God today? That is, the objective words of the book, not a commentary, i.e., interpretation? Does it have a name? Identify it.


I will wait..for an eternity.

kayaker
March 11th, 2015, 05:56 PM
Translation: Here are a bunch of fake, fallible bibles, and I will use them, to correct each other, to arrive at perfection.


=can't be done.

=log in, lose your mind.

Soooo, J Dubya... Which translation to you prefer? And my fallible rendering never suggested "perfection," but I did studiously provide both translations and renderings of Jews, Catholics, and Protestants. Then, I'm sure you can offer the clear, explicit path to utter and irrefutable Scriptural illumination, then? Your feeble post is a far cry from taking a shot at Genesis 4:23 KJV, Genesis 4:24 KJV... you didn't even provide YOUR preferred translation of these two verses, much less a rendering. So, quit shooting blanks and impress anyone besides yourself!

kayaker

Ask Mr. Religion
March 11th, 2015, 06:43 PM
My view:

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3986847#post3986847

Just in case anyone is wondering, I am not a KJBOnlyist. ;) In fact, I readily admit that there are some places, such as some of the obvious archaic words, in the KJV that I think could be improved upon—indeed I even hope a day will come when the church will take up the task of creating a faithful revision of the KJV. Until that happens, I don’t see the harm in having to bear with a few outdated expressions for what I consider to be the best faithful translation of the inspired Holy Writ.

I own what I think are all the major translations of Scripture. I have studied them, as well as their underlying manuscripts, and consult them often. But at the end of the day I have to make a choice such that I will be judged by or I will judge—and judge I must. Why? When I am confronted with conflicting versions of Scripture translations, I am compelled to make a choice, for I believe the holy scriptures are to be read with an high and reverent esteem of them; with a firm persuasion that they are the very word of God (WLC (http://www.reformed.org/documents/wlc_w_proofs/index.html)-Q.157). If we are taught from Scripture to hear the Word of the Lord, that is, to hear and not bring up all manner of questions criticizing the Word of the Lord, then this convinces me that I cannot in good conscience hold conflicting versions in reverent esteem as if both versions are the word of God.

For me this begins with confession that the divine revelation of God is that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God, and that I and others who so confess the same are the real successors of Peter, all speaking by the influence of the Holy Spirit. When I examine what version was predominantly quoted from by the Reformers and the Puritans that have come before me, the KJV stands out for I believe, as it was similarly understood by the forefathers, that the KJV excels because the version

(1) drew upon the best Hebrew and Greek manuscripts;
(2) was translated with a conservative philosophy of translation;
(3) deployed great wisdom when using transliteration;
(4) matched the majesty of the style of Scripture in dignified and very elegant English;
(5) when read according to the purpose for which the Scriptures were delivered by God, is easily understood; and,
(6) makes the sense of Scripture clearer through the use of italicized words.

I recognize that some complain that the KJV uses English that was not spoken by English-speaking persons of any time in history.

Nevertheless, the KJV represents a written composition and there is no reason to argue that written composition need be something widely spoken—a fact that any student of English composition must admit.

Turretin, on the authority of translations of the Scriptures, writes that while the authority of a translation from its original is not to be made equal to the original, nevertheless all authority must not be denied to versions. Clearly, the words and the sense of Scripture are to be distinguished. The words of any translation are not inspired words, but the sense that these words conveyed, when accurately translated is inspired.

Continuing, Turretin observes, Although any version made by fallible men cannot be considered divine and infallible with respect to the terms, yet it can well be considered such with respect to the things, since it faithfully expresses the divine truth of the sources. On the foundation of our faith, I also note what Turretin has to say: Thus faith depends not on the authority of the interpreter or minister, but is built upon the truth and authenticity (authentia) of the things contained in the versions. (See: Francis Turretin Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 1:123-127, available here (http://www.amazon.com/Institutes-Elenctic-Theology-vol-set/dp/0875524567).

If Turretin was on to something here, and I believe he was, and that we believers should be building our faith upon the things contained in the version, I fail to see how a proper function of the ministry is to lay out contradictory views, or things that are to be believed. Furthermore, lest I be misunderstood, I have no argument with seeking to update the language of the Scriptures of the Reformation, if such an effort were for the goal of making that Scripture more intelligible. In fact, I would heartily commend such an effort.

Unfortunately, it is my opinion, having studied carefully for many years all the translations whose editors have claimed this very goal, that in pursuit of the goal, changes have been introduced that change the meaning of the English Scriptures, changing the things contained in the version, supra Turretin, and the very word of God, supra WLC (http://www.reformed.org/documents/wlc_w_proofs/index.html)-Q.157.

AMR

dialm
March 11th, 2015, 06:57 PM
AMR,

That makes a lot of sense. The popularity of the KJ started slow. It's popularity decline has also been slow. I don't want to let go. That is the old school in me.

Mocking You
March 11th, 2015, 07:14 PM
the KJV excels because the version

(1) drew upon the best Hebrew and Greek manuscripts;

Drew upon the most popular manuscript available at that time.


(2) was translated with a conservative philosophy of translation;

Was translated with the goal of not offending the Church of England or the King.


(3) deployed great wisdom when using transliteration;

Deployed the wisdom known at the time.


(4) matched the majesty of the style of Scripture in dignified and very elegant English;

Was translated in the common tongue in use at the time. It only seems dignified and elegant in hindsight.


(5) when read according to the purpose for which the Scriptures were delivered by God, is easily understood; and

I don't think Olde English phrases are advantageous in order to be "profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness", er, I mean, "useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness"


(6) makes the sense of Scripture clearer through the use of italicized words.

Changes the meaning of the text by adding words to it, like in Matt 24:24
24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.


I recognize that some complain that the KJV uses English that was not spoken by English-speaking persons of any time in history.

Nevertheless, the KJV represents a written composition and there is no reason to argue that written composition need be something widely spoken—a fact that any student of English composition must admit.

Yet one of the main motivations for the KJV was to provide the Church of England with a pulpit Bible, one that would be a universal translation spoken aloud in church.

I used to be KJVO. But after a thorough study of it, I've come to realize it's filled with confusing prose, downright inaccuracies, clunky phrases, etc. It's not simply the archaic words. It's definitely not the translation you would want new converts starting out their walk with Christ to be burdened with.

kiwimacahau
March 11th, 2015, 07:23 PM
I've heard that said before, peculiar is another word, kind of makes me remember this when i hear it.

I Peter 2:9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:

10 Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.

His site has quite a few areas of information.

everready

No, that is not what I mean. He is dangerously strange.

Daniel1611
March 11th, 2015, 07:54 PM
Nick, the difference here between the KJV and the NKJV is a translational issue. Daniel1611 asserted, "The main problem is that the NKJV departs from the TR and the Masoretic" which must mean that the NKJV rejects the TR and Masoretic text in favor of a different text in certain verses. That's patently false.

Disagree about the differences in the translation of the TR between the KJV and the NKJV but Daniel1611 doesn't get to say that the NKJV doesn't use the TR.

The NKJV omits words that are in the TR and Masoretic, and changes words to different words. Therefore, it departs from the Masoretic and TR. If it omits words or changes them, it is departing. I use the KJV. I read the real thing. I don't have time for an imitation.

Daniel1611
March 11th, 2015, 07:58 PM
Translation: There is no pure, sound, true, certain word of God today, as all we have left is subjectivity(unless you are going to "argue" that all have the same interpretation): " but the Holy Spirit that interprets the scriptures for the heirs of promise is infallible."

"but the Holy Spirit that interprets the scriptures for the heirs of promise is infallible."

=Thanks for saying nothing, as we already know that men do not have a "100% accurate interpretation" of the book. If we did, we'd be God. The issue is the objective words in the scripture, not interpretation. Where can we get a copy of the true, pure, certain, sound......word of God today? Does it have a name? Identify it.

Jesus Christ said "My WORDS shall not pass away." His WORDS have not passed away. They have been recorded and passed down from generation to generation. Modern Bible translations have tried to cast doubt on Jesus' words and even to delete them from history, but they are preserved forever.

Mocking You
March 11th, 2015, 08:49 PM
The NKJV omits words that are in the TR and Masoretic, and changes words to different words. Therefore, it departs from the Masoretic and TR. If it omits words or changes them, it is departing.

Again, this is a translation issue, not a manuscript issue. The KJV adds words that aren't in the manuscripts. Anyway, name a verse where the NKJV does this.

Simon Baker
March 11th, 2015, 09:43 PM
Soooo, J Dubya... Which translation to you prefer? And my fallible rendering never suggested "perfection," but I did studiously provide both translations and renderings of Jews, Catholics, and Protestants. Then, I'm sure you can offer the clear, explicit path to utter and irrefutable Scriptural illumination, then? Your feeble post is a far cry from taking a shot at Genesis 4:23 KJV, Genesis 4:24 KJV... you didn't even provide YOUR preferred translation of these two verses, much less a rendering. So, quit shooting blanks and impress anyone besides yourself!

kayaker

Why Do You Insist john w "Take A Shot" @ Those Two Verses ? Perhaps You Respect And Appreciate His Wisdom. Ask Nicely, Not Adversarial, And Maybe He Will Answer.


19362

kayaker
March 11th, 2015, 10:03 PM
Why Do You Insist john w "Take A Shot" @ Those Two Verses ? Perhaps You Respect And Appreciate His Wisdom. Ask Nicely, Not Adversarial, And Maybe He Will Answer.


19362

I appreciate your comment, Simon. This was JW's response to my post:


Translation: Here are a bunch of fake, fallible bibles, and I will use them, to correct each other, to arrive at perfection.


=can't be done.

=log in, lose your mind.

I already didn't capture JW's alleged wisdom, Simon. JW had his chance. Now, maybe you didn't notice a bit of adversity in JW's response to my post. Possibly I should have responded, "=log in, gain a brain"? IF JW had any wisdom to share, he would have provided it. So, no... no I don't expect a reply from JW. But, I will accept his apology. And, I do sincerely appreciate your honesty.

kayaker

kiwimacahau
March 11th, 2015, 10:51 PM
Jesus Christ said "My WORDS shall not pass away." His WORDS have not passed away. They have been recorded and passed down from generation to generation. Modern Bible translations have tried to cast doubt on Jesus' words and even to delete them from history, but they are preserved forever.

And not once did He mean an English translation of the Bible.

patrick jane
March 11th, 2015, 10:56 PM
And not once did He mean an English translation of the Bible.

yeh, cuz when Jesus said "all ends of the earth", He knew everyone would learn aramaic, hebrew or greek - :Patrol:

kayaker
March 12th, 2015, 06:53 AM
yeh, cuz when Jesus said "all ends of the earth", He knew everyone would learn aramaic, hebrew or greek - :Patrol:

I do indeed admire your free spirit, Patrick! Much wisdom in your words, friend!

Essentially denouncing the KJV, Kiwi chooses the NASB, NIV, ESB, REB, NEB, RSV, NRSV, JB. I’m not readily familiar with those abbreviations. The NT began with the lineage of Jesus, with particular interest in Matthew 1:5 NKJV v. Matthew 1:5 KJV. Please note the distinction between RaHab, and RaCHab between these two translations. A harlot being in the ‘name’ of Jesus is contrary to Leviticus 21:1 KJV, Leviticus 21:14 KJV. The Greek Septuagint maintained distinction such that the name “Rahab” pertaining to the harlot of Jericho was the same spelling as Paul mentioned in Hebrews 11:31, and James in James 2:25. Furthermore, the Septuagint distinguished RaCHab in Matthew 1:5 KJV, from RaHab the harlot found in the majority of translations as in the NKJV Matthew 1:5 NKJV.

The following translations begin NT with RaHab the harlot in Jesus’ ancestry, the ‘name’ of Jesus: NLT, ESV, HCSB, ISV, NET Bible, Aramic Bible in PLAIN ENGLISH, God’s Word TRANSLATION, KJ 2000 Bible, ASV, Douay-Rheims Bible, ERV, Weymouth NT, Word English Bible, and Young’s Literal

biblehub.com/matthew/1-5.htm

Furthermore, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops also maintains RaHab the harlot was in the ancestry of Jesus.

www.usccb.org/bible/matthew/1

The following translations, noted at biblehub, maintain the Greek distinction that RaCHab was the wife of Booz, and NOT Rahab the harlot: KJV, Jubilee 2000, American KJV, Darby, and Websters. There certainly may be other translations that do not deny the ‘name’ of Jesus alleging a harlot in His ancestry.

I do proffer that any translation beginning the NT with a harlot in Jesus’ ‘name’, His ancestry, that I do have to seriously question the ‘themes’ which dictated their diction in translation. Interestingly, Matthew excluded the written name of Bathsheba, wife of David, (Matthew 1:6 NKJV v. Matthew 1:6 KJV), which I gather a sense of disrespect. Then it stands to reason in my mind that Matthew would have tendered similar disrespect to the wife of Booz, had she been a harlot.

Those two verses, Genesis 4:23 KJV, and Genesis 4:24 KJV that I brought to this table are quite pivotal: Genesis 4:24 KJV was the last specific mention of Cain’s descendants in the OT. It’s like, poof, and they fell off the radar with the next verse, Genesis 4:25 KJV, being a most peculiar transition. In similar fashion, neither the manners of deaths, nor longevities of Cain & Co., are explicitly revealed in Genesis. And, Cain was a major character, while the longevity of Seth is written (Genesis 5:8 KJV). The mark of Cain was merely anonymity afforded to Cain’s descendants, including preserving their flesh existence, in God’s Word.

Therefore, the reason I brought Genesis 4:23 KJV and Genesis 4:24 KJV to this table is to illuminate the Jewish, Catholic, and Protestant distinctions in translation, and rendering. The Jewish translation and rendering of these two verses are off base, a polite way of saying ‘uninspired’ (Isaiah 6:9, 10, 11, 12), as well as the Catholic Bible that RCLady ascribes to.

Maybe none are literally perfect, but some translations are distinctly better than others, in the ‘name’ of Jesus. I proffer the KJV is close enough for the Holy Spirit to ‘fill in the blanks,’ so to speak. So, I suggest Kiwi step up and take a closer look at those translations he would refer new ‘converts’ to that might be a little easier to read… like it’s easier looking for a lost ring at night under a street light, because it is dark in the yard where the ring was lost.

kayaker

dialm
March 12th, 2015, 07:05 AM
If the woman who lived on/in the wall is in The Linage then the City still lives.

That would make it the oldest living city.

Truster
March 12th, 2015, 07:21 AM
The main problem in translating the Scriptures into English is the fact that English was not a language or tongue that was given at Babel. English is illegitimate and is mostly made up or constructed from words or parts of words from other tongues, Latin, French, Greek and the list goes on.
Now Welsh is a tongue that was given at Babel as it the oldest European language and still keeps much of its purity. When I began ripping the scriptures apart and putting them back together again I discovered words that were lacking the force or power of the original Greek or Hebrew words and here is an example.
There was an old boy I used to visit who spent each and every day with his nose in the Bible. He died last year aged 98 and he had read the bible 60 plus times. He knew and recognised the scriptures, but was lacking in the true understanding.
I'd been stripping down Psalm 23 and the word follow as in ''goodness and mercy shall follow me....'' just didn't fit. I discovered that 'radaph' would be better translated as persue. The word itself is usually used to portray evil intent and would mean to run after. David used the term to ask Saul why he was exerting so much effort in 'pursuing' him.

Follow me all the days of my life does not convey the sense of pursuit and when I pointed this out to Jim he looked in the KJV and came up with 'follow', but then he picked up the Welsh Bible and he was amazed to discover that the word used was follow, but follow in a very strong manner and with extreme intent and purpose.

When I ponder on my day I often stop to be thankful that goodness and mercy are in pursuit of me and that they always catch me.

chrysostom
March 12th, 2015, 07:26 AM
When I began ripping the scriptures apart and putting them back together again .

are you still doing that?

dialm
March 12th, 2015, 07:36 AM
Hello chrysostom.

Truster
March 12th, 2015, 07:40 AM
PS the Old and New Testaments were translated into Welsh in 1588. The NT was published in 1567.


http://www.llgc.org.uk/index.php?id=292

PPS I have on occasion heard rumours that the English translators used to compare their translation with the Welsh.

kayaker
March 12th, 2015, 09:14 AM
If the woman who lived on/in the wall is in The Linage then the City still lives.

That would make it the oldest living city.

Most, un-illuminated Jews particularly (Isaiah 6:9, 10, 11, 12), subscribe to the notion Rahab the harlot is in the lineage of Jesus. I'm not of that inclination, used to be, though. Then would you suggest Jericho, where Rahab was from, is the oldest living city, then? I would hold you to task that that city was destroyed, LOL! But, I do like the direction of your line of thinking!

kayaker

Truster
March 12th, 2015, 09:46 AM
If the woman who lived on/in the wall is in The Linage then the City still lives.

That would make it the oldest living city.

Utter and complete 100% pure twaddle.

kayaker
March 12th, 2015, 09:46 AM
PS the Old and New Testaments were translated into Welsh in 1588. The NT was published in 1567.


http://www.llgc.org.uk/index.php?id=292

PPS I have on occasion heard rumours that the English translators used to compare their translation with the Welsh.

Very interesting! I appreciate exploring other translations, the good, the bad, and the ugly... even though hardly familiar to me. But, I can get there pretty quickly using sites like biblehub, as I've tried to demonstrate, zeroing in on pivotal, rather than superfluous, verses. Furthermore, I consider fluency in the OT as paramount to NT accuracy brought forth in Genesis 4:23 KJV, Genesis 4:24 KJV. The problem appears most NT translations seem to perpetuate Jewish fables (Catholic, particularly), considering Isaiah 6:9, 10, 11, 12, that Jesus brought to the table in Matthew 13:10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, delineating a multitude believer from a disciple. I proffer Jewish fables include a harlot in Jesus' ancestry (David's ancestry for the Jews), contrary to Leviticus 21:1, 14, along with Ruth being a blood Moabite, contrary to Deuteronomy 23:3, 6. God 'wrote' the Law, and only God can change it... and He did being Judah's widowed daughter-in-law Tamar is found in the lineage of David and Jesus (Matthew 1:3 KJV), even though Judah's relationship with Tamar, who played the harlot, is contrary to Leviticus 18:15 KJV, Leviticus 21:7 KJV, Leviticus 21:9 KJV, Leviticus 21:13 KJV, Leviticus 21:15 KJV...

So, I trust you can imagine why I hold the opinion that OT fluency is paramount to more accurate NT translation, regardless of the language it is translated into or from. I would venture to imagine the 1588 Welsh Bible translated by William Morgan that you bring forth maintained the RaChab v. RaHab distinction. Do you have any comment on this?

kayaker

Truster
March 12th, 2015, 09:55 AM
Very interesting! I appreciate exploring other translations, the good, the bad, and the ugly... even though hardly familiar to me. But, I can get there pretty quickly using sites like biblehub, as I've tried to demonstrate, zeroing in on pivotal, rather than superfluous, verses. Furthermore, I consider fluency in the OT as paramount to NT accuracy brought forth in Genesis 4:23 KJV, Genesis 4:24 KJV. The problem appears most NT translations seem to perpetuate Jewish fables (Catholic, particularly), considering Isaiah 6:9, 10, 11, 12, that Jesus brought to the table in Matthew 13:10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, delineating a multitude believer from a disciple. I proffer Jewish fables include a harlot in Jesus' ancestry (David's ancestry for the Jews), contrary to Leviticus 21:1, 14, along with Ruth being a blood Moabite, contrary to Deuteronomy 23:3, 6. God 'wrote' the Law, and only God can change it... and He did being Judah's widowed daughter-in-law Tamar is found in the lineage of David and Jesus (Matthew 1:3 KJV), even though Judah's relationship with Tamar, who played the harlot, is contrary to Leviticus 18:15 KJV, Leviticus 21:7 KJV, Leviticus 21:9 KJV, Leviticus 21:13 KJV, Leviticus 21:15 KJV...

So, I trust you can imagine why I hold the opinion that OT fluency is paramount to more accurate NT translation, regardless of the language it is translated into or from. I would venture to imagine the 1588 Welsh Bible translated by William Morgan that you bring forth maintained the RaChab v. RaHab distinction. Do you have any comment on this?

kayaker

No.

john w
March 12th, 2015, 10:10 AM
Soooo, J Dubya... Which translation to you prefer?

Catch that, TOL audience? Bible correctors, in contrast to bible believers, always "prefer...like...use" a "bible," never believing any one of them, correcting them all. It's akin to going to a buffet....choose a little here, there...

Which bible do you believe?

I "use" a car manual,dictionary....I "prefer" fast food, over nutritious food. And?

And I should "prefer" the "Koran," as its less demanding than the Scripture, and this "Allah" guy is much less demanding than the Lord Jesus Christ. Of course, mankind, in general, "prefers"/"likes" to "work their way" up to dem big, pearly gates, which is why most of the world rejects Christianity, and "prefers" to accept Romanism, Islam, Mormonism...........=the pride of men......They "like" it...They "prefer" it.........And thus, they are blind/lost.


And so it goes...Eccl. 1:9 KJV...


"Preferring....liking...using" any "bible," presupposes an authority over it.

Where can we get a copy of the true, pure, certain, sound......word of God today? That is, the objective words of the book, not a commentary, i.e., interpretation? Does it have a name? Identify it. Name that "is given by inspiration"(not "was") scripture, that you can press to your heart, and claim, "This is the pure, true, certain, sure, sound..............word of God...I believe every word of it."




I will wait..for an eternity.

kayaker
March 12th, 2015, 10:15 AM
No.

Then do "messianists" subscribe to the notion King David had a harlot in his ancestry? If so... then, how is this reconciled considering Leviticus 21:1 KJV, Leviticus 21:14 KJV?

kayaker

kayaker
March 12th, 2015, 10:30 AM
Catch that, TOL audience? Bible correctors, in contrast to bible believers, always "prefer...like...use" a "bible," never believing any one of them, correcting them all. It's akin to going to a buffet....choose a little here, there...

Which bible do you believe?

I "use" a car manual.dictionary....I "prefer" fast food, over nutritious food. And?

And I should "prefer" the "Koran," as its less demanding than the Scripture, and this "Allah" guy is much less demanding than the Lord Jesus Christ. Of course, mankind, in general, "prefers"/"likes" to "work their way" up to dem big, pearly gates, which is why most of the world rejects Christianity, and "prefers" to accept Romanism, Islam, Mormonism...........=the pride of men......They "like" it...They "prefer" it.........And thus, they are blind/lost.


And so it goes...Eccl. 1:9 KJV...


"Preferring....liking...using" any "bible," presupposes an authority over it.

Where can we get a copy of the true, pure, certain, sound......word of God today? That is, the objective words of the book, not a commentary, i.e., interpretation? Does it have a name? Identify it. Name that "is given by inspiration"(not "was") scripture, that you can press to your heart, and claim, "This is the pure, true, certain, sure, sound..............word of God...I believe every word of it."




I will wait..for an eternity.

You've been waiting for the truth since eternity... so, what's new? Have a little problem wallowing in the Word with the great unwashed there, Jay Dubya? You've said nothing Scriptural r/t the OP. Why am I not surprised? Is "Eccl 1:9 KJV" your favorite verse corroborating your learn-nothing attitude? Why did you intentionally include "KJV" at the end of that verse? Don't tell me... you have a preference, then? I won't hold my breath. How about coming back to planet earth and tackle some Scripture? Afraid of the smell of your feet on fire, LOL! You're just a naysayer, dude. Get used to the aroma... it doesn't smell like coffee, btw. On second thought, I might hold my breath, ROFLOL!

kayaker

Truster
March 12th, 2015, 10:44 AM
Then do "messianists" subscribe to the notion King David had a harlot in his ancestry? If so... then, how is this reconciled considering Leviticus 21:1 KJV, Leviticus 21:14 KJV?

kayaker

Rahab acted by trust (faith) and that means she was saved. She no longer carried the sin she was born into nor the sin of her former actions. Hebrews 11:31

kayaker
March 12th, 2015, 11:18 AM
Rahab acted by trust (faith) and that means she was saved. She no longer carried the sin she was born into nor the sin of her former actions. Hebrews 11:31

The Jews say she was 'converted' as their justification of a harlot being in the lineage of David. The concept of 'conversion' was mentioned in the OT in Isaiah 1:27 KJV, Isaiah 6:10 KJV, Isaiah 60:5 KJV, and Psalm 51:13. Sounded quite prophetic, being 'converted.' On the other hand the notion of 'converted' was used in the NT in James 5:19 KJV, Matthew 13:15 KJV, Matthew 18:3 KJV, Mark 4:12 KJV, Luke 22:32 KJV, John 12:40 KJV, Acts 3:19 KJV, Acts 28:27 KJV. It's a Jewish notion folk were 'saved' in the OT, 'converting' to Judaism, Talmudic I might add... the Satanic religion Paul defected from, btw. I do admire Paul's reference to the faith of Rahab... But, Paul's respect didn't place Rahab in the lineage of Jesus, and clearly her faith was exemplary that she was spared utter destruction.

Jesus used the notion of a multitude believer (John 8:30 KJV) being "converted" into a disciple (John 8:31 KJV, John 8:32 KJV) as He'd previously noted the distinction between a believer and a disciple in Matthew 13:10, 11, 12, 13, 14, Matthew 13:15 KJV (v. Matthew 13:15 NKJV). So, there is a distinction between being a believer in Jesus, and being a disciple of Jesus.

I adhere to the notion Rahab followed the God of Israel, and Jeremiah kept his word 'saving' her and her family from utter destruction. Rahab was undoubtedly a very successful and knowledgeable business woman, likely selling fine linen (made from flax on her roof) to all the elite. I proffer Rahab's establishment was the first 'Victoria's Secrets'! Nonetheless, Rahab & Co. were not permitted entry into the congregation of the Lord following the destruction of Jericho. So, I appreciate your post... but, that doesn't place Rahab in the ancestry of David (and Jesus). I maintain that's a Jewish fable, perpetuated by the alleged 'Christ's one historic Catholic Church' who clearly relied on un-illuminated Jewish renderings (Isaiah 6:9, 10, 11, 12) of the OT considering Genesis 4:23 KJV, Genesis 4:24 KJV mentioned in a prior post.

Many believe Rahab the harlot is in the ancestry of Jesus. I no longer subscribe to this notion since joining TOL and having my feet held to the fire on that one!

kayaker

Truster
March 12th, 2015, 11:22 AM
The Jews say she was 'converted' as their justification of a harlot being in the lineage of David. The concept of 'conversion' was mentioned in the OT in Isaiah 1:27 KJV, Isaiah 6:10 KJV, Isaiah 60:5 KJV, and Psalm 51:13. Sounded quite prophetic, being 'converted.' On the other hand the notion of 'converted' was used in the NT in James 5:19 KJV, Matthew 13:15 KJV, Matthew 18:3 KJV, Mark 4:12 KJV, Luke 22:32 KJV, John 12:40 KJV, Acts 3:19 KJV, Acts 28:27 KJV. It's a Jewish notion folk were 'saved' in the OT, 'converting' to Judaism, Talmudic I might add... the Satanic religion Paul defected from, btw. I do admire Paul's reference to the faith of Rahab... But, Paul's respect didn't place Rahab in the lineage of Jesus, and clearly her faith was exemplary that she was spared utter destruction.

Jesus used the notion of a multitude believer (John 8:30 KJV) being "converted" into a disciple (John 8:31 KJV, John 8:32 KJV) as He'd previously noted the distinction between a believer and a disciple in Matthew 13:10, 11, 12, 13, 14, Matthew 13:15 KJV (v. Matthew 13:15 NKJV). So, there is a distinction between being a believer in Jesus, and being a disciple of Jesus.

I adhere to the notion Rahab followed the God of Israel, and Jeremiah kept his word 'saving' her and her family from utter destruction. Rahab was undoubtedly a very successful and knowledgeable business woman, likely selling fine linen (made from flax on her roof) to all the elite. I proffer Rahab's establishment was the first 'Victoria's Secrets'! Nonetheless, Rahab & Co. were not permitted entry into the congregation of the Lord following the destruction of Jericho. So, I appreciate your post... but, that doesn't place Rahab in the ancestry of David (and Jesus). I maintain that's a Jewish fable, perpetuated by the alleged 'Christ's one historic Catholic Church' who clearly relied on un-illuminated Jewish renderings (Isaiah 6:9, 10, 11, 12) of the OT considering Genesis 4:23 KJV, Genesis 4:24 KJV mentioned in a prior post.

Many believe Rahab the harlot is in the ancestry of Jesus. I no longer subscribe to this notion since joining TOL and having my feet held to the fire on that one!

kayaker


You use a lot of words to say...nothing.

You do use the term ''I'' seven times so its obvious you hold great store in what ''I '' thinks.

kayaker
March 12th, 2015, 11:41 AM
You use a lot of words to say...nothing.

Which is, unfortunately, very close to your Scriptural discernment. Quite possibly you have next to nothing to say, for the same reason. Rahab was 'saved,' therefore you're 'saved.' You saved Jesus from the alleged harlotry in His ancestry! Since you can 'save' Jesus, then 'saving' yourself is a walk in the park, then? Have you ever considered Jeremiah to be your messiah? There is a striking parallel. Sorry I rattled the timbers in your exclusive 'salvation' paradigm of your "messianist" religion... So, don't ask me... go check out the story of Rahab being excluded from the congregation of the Lord following the destruction of Jericho. Rattle your own 'salvation' paradigm... been in the Books for more than a few years, now. But, surely don't use a Bible like the KJV that distinguished RaCHab being in Jesus' ancestry (Matthew 1:5 KJV), and NOT Rahab the harlot (Matthew 1:5 NKJV).

kayaker

kayaker
March 12th, 2015, 11:53 AM
You use a lot of words to say...nothing.

You do use the term ''I'' seven times so its obvious you hold great store in what ''I '' thinks.

Btw... I study for myself. Where do U arrive at the notion Rahab the harlot was in Jesus' ancestry? Surely you figured that one out, or, U might find yourself looking for another church or synagogue. Think about Matthew 8:19 KJV, Matthew 8:20 KJV while you're on your great quest for trUth, obviously not found in your chUrch!

kayaker

dialm
March 12th, 2015, 12:13 PM
Most, un-illuminated Jews particularly (Isaiah 6:9, 10, 11, 12), subscribe to the notion Rahab the harlot is in the lineage of Jesus. I'm not of that inclination, used to be, though. Then would you suggest Jericho, where Rahab was from, is the oldest living city, then? I would hold you to task that that city was destroyed, LOL! But, I do like the direction of your line of thinking!

kayaker

A tight corner if spelling is the key since the 1611 contains a lot of different ways of spelling.

The King of the City remains alive and well. His headquarters are located in the rear of the opposing army. Exactly what Joshua was trying to avoid. Lucky for us that an intriguing line was let down from above.

Truster
March 12th, 2015, 12:55 PM
This message is hidden because kayaker is on your ignore list.

john w
March 12th, 2015, 01:22 PM
You've been waiting for the truth since eternity... so, what's new? Have a little problem wallowing in the Word with the great unwashed there, Jay Dubya? You've said nothing Scriptural r/t the OP. Why am I not surprised? Is "Eccl 1:9 KJV" your favorite verse corroborating your learn-nothing attitude? Why did you intentionally include "KJV" at the end of that verse? Don't tell me... you have a preference, then? I won't hold my breath. How about coming back to planet earth and tackle some Scripture? Afraid of the smell of your feet on fire, LOL! You're just a naysayer, dude. Get used to the aroma... it doesn't smell like coffee, btw. On second thought, I might hold my breath, ROFLOL!

kayaker

"Scriptural," you muze, little bible corrector/rejector/agnostic? Well, drone, if you would just identify this "desert mirage," "theoretical" "scripture," I'll give you the honor of discussing this with me.

Where can we get a copy of the true, pure, certain, sound......"the Word...Scripture"(your words)today? Does it have a name? Identify it. Name that "is given by inspiration"(not "was") scripture, that you can press to your heart, and claim, "This is the pure, true, certain, sure, sound..............word of God...I believe every word of it."




"Don't tell me... you have a preference, then? I won't hold my breath."-bible corrector.

I've answered, cliche breath. I have in my hand the true, sure, sound, certain word of God, for English speaking people. I believe every last word of it, and do not submit it to my correction. I submit to its correction.


That is the difference between me, a bible believer, and you, a bible corrector.


Contrasts.


What do you have?

Let me guess: You prefer/like/use any "the bible," that agrees with your doctrine, and talks to you, like you talk to your "dude" friends, on your cell phone, eh toots? A "convenient, friendly," "god."


"ROFLOL..dude"

You: In the beginning, the Big Dude created the....

kayaker
March 12th, 2015, 01:36 PM
A tight corner if spelling is the key since the 1611 contains a lot of different ways of spelling.

The King of the City remains alive and well. His headquarters are located in the rear of the opposing army. Exactly what Joshua was trying to avoid. Lucky for us that an intriguing line was let down from above.

Which city, Jericho? LOL! Well... the spelling of the name of the wife of Booz is quite significant. One spelling puts a harlot in the 'name' of Jesus, while the other spelling does not. Furthermore, Rahab & Co. were not initially permitted into the congregation following the conquest (Joshua 6:23 KJV). The Septuagint maintained the Greek spelling of Rahab referring to the harlot of Jericho in the OT, and in the NT regarding Paul's and James' references, AND the Greek Septuagint noted the spelling distinction of RaChab in Matthew 1:5 KJV. I've checked over the timelines, and it appears the closest I can get is Rahab being about 60 y/o when her life span overlapped with Salmon's. Their hooking-up to sire Booz seems pretty unlikely considering the fertility component.

Indeed Dial, there is a striking parallel with Joshua and Jesus (did I get those names mixed up?)! We are blessed beyond imagination! Do you have any OT Scripture that suggests a harlot is an acceptable wife of an OT priest, then? I've already addressed Tamar, the put-away-wife who played the harlot being contrary to Leviticus... God personally slew Judah's two elder Canaanite sons. That oughta be a pretty solid indicator no Canaanites would be in the lineage of Jesus, as was Judah's wife (Genesis 38:1, 2, 1Chronicles 2:3). Such union was contraindicated in Deuteronomy 7:1, 2, 3, that Joshua reiterated before the conquest of Jericho in Joshua 3:9, 10. So, I don't think Joshua would have approved of a Canaanite in Messiah's ancestry.

However, there was a door for Ishmaelites and Hittites to enter the congregation of the Lord being the third generation Edomites in Deuteronomy 23:7, 8, 9. But, I don't hear them becoming spouses of priests. Solomon's folly should bear reflection on this case; cost him a kingdom!

kayaker

WonderfulLordJesus
March 12th, 2015, 01:41 PM
Never really thought about it, in terms of the King James, perse. There was this preacher on the radio a long time ago, who had one foot in hell and flames licking the ears of people who strayed into some other translation. He was really annoyingly loud and choleric, was one of those control freaks, trying to shove their denominational prejudices down other peoples' throats, constantly.

I do believe the King James a more splendid translation, my favorite, with a unique poetic precision of language, while maintaining accuracy, as opposed to a good Bible, but more choppy, linguistically, NASB. The KJV is a no doubt a God-send, and a monumental work. But your criticism of the notion of being infallible? I don't know, but have to wonder why not, since you have no reservations to declare all Popes infallible? We should not err and paint ourselves into a corner of the pot calling the kettle black, if we're to maintain some modicum of credibility. I mean, just saying...

Put it this way, on the one hand you have the word of God, on the other hand the word of Pope Siredafew, on the side.

SaulToPaul
March 12th, 2015, 02:06 PM
You: In the beginning, the Big Dude created the....

And shortly thereafter, he told Adam and Eve TTYL.

john w
March 12th, 2015, 02:09 PM
And shortly thereafter, he told Adam and Eve TTYL.

Yes, Mayor-"wink."


I will not waste another 5 seconds of my time in this life, "answering" the foolish questions of some stupid bible mystic/agnostic, with no faith in any bible, since the book does not exist,"The Word of God, the scripture, the perfect, pure, inerrant word of God cannot be found on any printed page," who simply is jealous of me, and you, and...because we won't jump in the ditch with him/her, and the rest of the Laodicean sewer rats. If they were "honest" men/women, about their silly questions, taught to them by silly men/women, wouldn't they have gotten down on their knees, and asked the LORD God, their trap "questions?" Did they do that? Tee hee("the modern English").

You see, I did that. That is what bible believers do. I have taken every question I ever had about the credibility, authenticity, trust worthiness, and reliability of my bible, the KJB, to the author and finisher of my faith-the Lord Jesus Christ. I never asked any man/woman a question, about a book, he/she cannot fully understand, especially, in their case, if that book does not exist, much less explain, much less write.

But, heh, that's just me-a wacko bible believer.

kayaker
March 12th, 2015, 02:43 PM
"Scriptural," you muze, little bible corrector/rejector/agnostic? Well, drone, if you would just identify this "desert mirage," "theoretical" "scripture," I'll give you the honor of discussing this with me...

I have in my hand the true, sure, sound, certain word of God, for English speaking people. I believe every last word of it, and do not submit it to my correction. I submit to its correction.

Uhhh, I think this is the place where you 'fess up. WHICH "true, sure, sound, certain word of God, for English speaking people" durn you correct yourself with, then? Got a Canaanite harlot in the closet? ROFLOL! If'n I ain't made it clear that I prefer the KJV, AND the reasons for it... then you STILL ain't listening! Forget conversation, which you've added utterly nothing to but naysaying. Do you shove those pages in yourn ears (Matthew 13:14 KJV, Matthew 13:15 KJV)? That's probably why Matthew 13:12 KJV doesn't make any sense to you.


That is the difference between me, a bible believer, and you, a bible corrector.

The Holy Spirit is the Bible Corrector, you'll realize that when you meet Him again... studying God's Word instead of thumping It in one hand, and pointing your long boney finger up in the air at others who do. So you're an alleged Bible believer, then (John 8:30 KJV)? Do you ever read it? Which one, btw! Do I even need to ask, ROFLOL! Then how about considering Jesus and His Father were TWO witnesses to Jesus' divine paternity in John 8:17, 18 in SAINT John, Jay Dubya. Witnesses do testify, do they not? How 'bout rendering up them TWO Divine testimonies in SAINT John between John 8:17, and John 8:47 KJV then, Jay Dubya. Make Simon proud to suggest you have Biblical wisdom. We agree Jesus isn't a liar, but that does sorta leave you a few rungs short of the "truth" then, doesn't it (John 8:32 KJV, John 8:33 KJV)? Your wisdom is evidenced by the lack thereof, evidenced by your lack of Scriptural dialogue, too. That's 'discussion' to you, since you don't bring forth any fruits worthy of repentance (Luke 3:7, 8), OR Biblical wisdom.

So, what's with your attitude, dude? Did you have a failed relationship as a choir boy? But, you think you have infinite knowledge discerning good and evil, then? Do snakes talk (Genesis 3:4, Genesis 3:5 KJV)? You seem quite mesmerized with yourself! Well, since you have no Scriptural argument... do you mind if I put you on TOL's most ignorant list? Please forgive me that I'll not reply to your narcissistic posts... I've had better Bible conversations at the local redneck saloon.

kayaker

kiwimacahau
March 12th, 2015, 02:45 PM
The KJV is a dated translation from dated, secondary sources. If you want to use it, knock yourself out but there are better.

john w
March 12th, 2015, 02:57 PM
Uhhh, I think this is the place where you 'fess up. WHICH "true, sure, sound, certain word of God, for English speaking people" durn you correct yourself with, then? Got a Canaanite harlot in the closet? ROFLOL! If'n I ain't made it clear that I prefer the KJV, AND the reasons for it... then you STILL ain't listening! Forget conversation, which you've added utterly nothing to but naysaying. Do you shove those pages in yourn ears (Matthew 13:14 KJV, Matthew 13:15 KJV)? That's probably why Matthew 13:12 KJV doesn't make any sense to you.



The Holy Spirit is the Bible Corrector, you'll realize that when you meet Him again... studying God's Word instead of thumping It in one hand, and pointing your long boney finger up in the air at others who do. So you're an alleged Bible believer, then (John 8:30 KJV)? Do you ever read it? Which one, btw! Do I even need to ask, ROFLOL! Then how about considering Jesus and His Father were TWO witnesses to Jesus' divine paternity in John 8:17, 18 in SAINT John, Jay Dubya. Witnesses do testify, do they not? How 'bout rendering up them TWO Divine testimonies in SAINT John between John 8:17, and John 8:47 KJV then, Jay Dubya. Make Simon proud to suggest you have Biblical wisdom. We agree Jesus isn't a liar, but that does sorta leave you a few rungs short of the "truth" then, doesn't it (John 8:32 KJV, John 8:33 KJV)? Your wisdom is evidenced by the lack thereof, evidenced by your lack of Scriptural dialogue, too. That's 'discussion' to you, since you don't bring forth any fruits worthy of repentance (Luke 3:7, 8), OR Biblical wisdom.

So, what's with your attitude, dude? Did you have a failed relationship as a choir boy? But, you think you have infinite knowledge discerning good and evil, then? Do snakes talk (Genesis 3:4, Genesis 3:5 KJV)? You seem quite mesmerized with yourself! Well, since you have no Scriptural argument... do you mind if I put you on TOL's most ignorant list? Please forgive me that I'll not reply to your narcissistic posts... I've had better Bible conversations at the local redneck saloon.

kayaker

"the Bible...word of God...Bible"-you

Still not able to identify this mystical, theoretical, "the Bible...word of God...Bible," that "is given by inspiration," toots? Why is that? A fascinating clinic, Jim, on bible agnosticism.




As I suspected:not a peep to..


Where can we get a copy of the true, pure, certain, sound......"the Word...Scripture"(your words)today? Does it have a name? Identify it. Name that "is given by inspiration"(not "was") scripture, that you can press to your heart, and claim, "This is the pure, true, certain, sure, sound..............word of God...I believe every word of it."


" prefer the KJV, AND the reasons for it... "-bible corrector/agnostic


I know-you are not a bible believer. So, what's the problem, toots? We agree.

"Do snakes talk (Genesis 3:4, Genesis 3:5 KJV)? "-bible corrector

=Since I, bible corrector, do not understand the book, it is wrong, not me, and I will correct it, correcting an uncorrectable LORD God, as I am the final authority, not the book. Your doctrine determines what the book should say, and what it is. If it does not agree with your doctrine, or you don't "get it,"you correct it.

We know. Define "bible believer."

"The Holy Spirit is the Bible Corrector, "-you

What a mess. How convenient-cliche from another website. No scripture says that-made up. No, you are, correcting any/every alleged bible, correcting the objective words. The punk-ette does not even know the difference between objective revelation, given by objective words, and interpretation/illumination/understanding.


Have a seat, Frau D. Kayaker.

Watch the emotional mutterings, snorts, grunts, to continue. This bible corrector/agnostic hates the fact that bible believers are men/women, who have the spine/backbone to stand up for their convictions, for what we believe. We understand the concept of AUTHORITY, because we understand the Holy Bible is a book about AUTHORITY. And watch the continued emotional rants from a babbling bible agnostic/critic, who can only hurt herself on these boards, by appealing to the scriptures, to prove, that we no longer have the scriptures.

Real sharp are these bible correctors/agnostics.

dialm
March 12th, 2015, 03:08 PM
Which city, Jericho? LOL! Well... the spelling of the name of the wife of Booz is quite significant. One spelling puts a harlot in the 'name' of Jesus, while the other spelling does not. Furthermore, Rahab & Co. were not initially permitted into the congregation following the conquest (Joshua 6:23 KJV). The Septuagint maintained the Greek spelling of Rahab referring to the harlot of Jericho in the OT, and in the NT regarding Paul's and James' references, AND the Greek Septuagint noted the spelling distinction of RaChab in Matthew 1:5 KJV. I've checked over the timelines, and it appears the closest I can get is Rahab being about 60 y/o when her life span overlapped with Salmon's. Their hooking-up to sire Booz seems pretty unlikely considering the fertility component.

Indeed Dial, there is a striking parallel with Joshua and Jesus (did I get those names mixed up?)! We are blessed beyond imagination! Do you have any OT Scripture that suggests a harlot is an acceptable wife of an OT priest, then? I've already addressed Tamar, the put-away-wife who played the harlot being contrary to Leviticus... God personally slew Judah's two elder Canaanite sons. That oughta be a pretty solid indicator no Canaanites would be in the lineage of Jesus, as was Judah's wife (Genesis 38:1, 2, 1Chronicles 2:3). Such union was contraindicated in Deuteronomy 7:1, 2, 3, that Joshua reiterated before the conquest of Jericho in Joshua 3:9, 10. So, I don't think Joshua would have approved of a Canaanite in Messiah's ancestry.

However, there was a door for Ishmaelites and Hittites to enter the congregation of the Lord being the third generation Edomites in Deuteronomy 23:7, 8, 9. But, I don't hear them becoming spouses of priests. Solomon's folly should bear reflection on this case; cost him a kingdom!

kayaker

Wasn't Jesus rejected by the nation over nothing?

If they did that to me I probably wouldn't care what they thought of my pedigree. Or my choice in a wife.

Would you?

kayaker
March 12th, 2015, 03:09 PM
The KJV is a dated translation from dated, secondary sources. If you want to use it, knock yourself out but there are better.

I appreciate the notion, Kiwi... Such is quite easily said. I've provided Jewish, Catholic, and Protestant translations and respective renderings of Genesis 4:23 KJV, Genesis 4:24 KJV, including the biblehub parallel. In case you might not have figured it out yet, those are two VERY pivotal verses greatly impacted by translation! So, throw some meat on the table, then. It's easy to kick back and make token gestures speaking about better translations from afar. Step up to the plate and toss your "better" translation of Genesis 4:23 KJV, Genesis 4:24 KJV, along with your rendering. That's what I find interesting on TOL. And, I'm not being Scripturally challenged. So, I'm talking about UFC, not aloof Monday morning quarterback tea parties.

kayaker

john w
March 12th, 2015, 03:10 PM
The KJV is a dated translation from dated, secondary sources. If you want to use it, knock yourself out but there are better.

"The Greek" is dated. Every "modern version" is "dated"-that is the nature of languages.


I don't "use" it-I believe every word in it.


Tell us that "scripture" that you believe. Where can I get a copy?

"For I am a man under authority..." Mt. 8:9 KJV


When bible believers speak about we we believe, everyone knows xactly where we are coming from. And you? "Well, uh, urr, I kinda like this version, but not this....I also use this version, but prefer....."

Fascinating. Jim. The word "believe" does not even enter the discussion.

And I like/prefer ice creme......

john w
March 12th, 2015, 03:14 PM
Uhhh, I think this is the place where you 'fess up. WHICH "true, sure, sound, certain word of God, for English speaking people" durn you correct yourself with, then?

Made up. I've spoken openly/"plainly," for years on TOL. Everyone, that pays attention, to the greatness of my posts, over the years, knows exactly what I believe, and why. Ask the neighborhood about me.

kiwimacahau
March 12th, 2015, 03:24 PM
"The Greek" is dated. Every "modern version" is "dated"-that is the nature of languages.


I don't "use" it-I believe every word in it.


Tell us that "scripture" that you believe. Where can I get a copy?

"For I am a man under authority..." Mt. 8:9 KJV


When bible believers speak about we we believe, everyone knows xactly where we are coming from. And you? "Well, uh, urr, I kinda like this version, but not this....I also use this version, but prefer....."

Fascinating. Jim. The word "believe" does not even enter the discussion.

And I like/prefer ice creme......

Because I was not speaking of belief. I was speaking of the translation into English of the Bible. The KJV is dated, it sources were far newer than the ones we have access to today and portions of it were direct transcriptions from Latin. If you wish to use it, use it. All English translations of the Bible, done by reputable bible scholars (yes, there's that word) are the Word of God.

Nazaroo
March 12th, 2015, 03:34 PM
yay King James!

The last Protestant King, and gifter to the English speaking peoples a great Bible.

Every king and religious leader since was neither.

I left the Anglican church when they took the Common Book of Prayer out of the pews,
and then took the Bible out of the pews,
and put homosexuals in the pulpits.

The Church of England was at its zenith in 1850.

Then it disintegrated when homos took over Oxford and Cambridge.

The Cambridge Five (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge_Five)

john w
March 12th, 2015, 03:40 PM
If you wish to use it, use it. All English translations of the Bible, done by reputable bible scholars (yes, there's that word) are the Word of God.

slower: "use"

I believe every word.

kiwimacahau
March 12th, 2015, 03:42 PM
'Use' and 'Believe are not antonyms.

john w
March 12th, 2015, 04:23 PM
Forgive me, Father. I've committed the sin of taking the Lord Jesus Christ's words literally, "...It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." The stuff keeps falling out of these bible correctors' brain, does it not?-"I could think of things I never thunk before...if I only had a brain..."

Now listen, pay attention, bible correctors-Every word of God that you or I or any else needs to live by is found in "the volume of the book"-one book. Can you dig that? Did you "get" the "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by..." part? Well? Or, did you conveniently skip over that so you could make out God to be a liar, and say that God would give us every word He ever spoke, or that He would subjectively talk to each of us through telepathy? He said He'd give us every word, written down, Scripture, that we'd need to live by, and He promised He would preserve them for us-every word, written down.

Where is this pure, true, sound, certain "is given by inspiration" scripture(written)? Where can we get a copy?

Oops....you let the LORD God's words fall to the ground, "bible believer"-bible does not really mean "book," now does it? 1 Samuel 3:19 KJV

Bible correctors are the prime examples of what happens to a man/woman who is steeped in mysticism, Buddhism, agnosticism....a baseless faith, grounded in a powerless book, manifested in sophistry,speculation, subjectivity, senseless "arguments," so that he/she cannot think straight on "the bible issue," and goes insane. It's called anti thinking.

john w
March 12th, 2015, 04:26 PM
'Use' and 'Believe are not antonyms.

Pay attention-I believe every word.

kiwimacahau
March 12th, 2015, 05:09 PM
Forgive me, Father. I've committed the sin of taking the Lord Jesus Christ's words literally, "...It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." The stuff keeps falling out of these bible correctors' brain, does it not?-"I could think of things I never thunk before...if I only had a brain..."

Now listen, pay attention, bible correctors-Every word of God that you or I or any else needs to live by is found in "the volume of the book"-one book. Can you dig that? Did you "get" the "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by..." part? Well? Or, did you conveniently skip over that so you could make out God to be a liar, and say that God would give us every word He ever spoke, or that He would subjectively talk to each of us through telepathy? He said He'd give us every word, written down, Scripture, that we'd need to live by, and He promised He would preserve them for us-every word, written down.

Where is this pure, true, sound, certain "is given by inspiration" scripture(written)? Where can we get a copy?

Oops....you let the LORD God's words fall to the ground, "bible believer"-bible does not really mean "book," now does it? 1 Samuel 3:19 KJV

Bible correctors are the prime examples of what happens to a man/woman who is steeped in mysticism, Buddhism, agnosticism....a baseless faith, grounded in a powerless book, manifested in sophistry,speculation, subjectivity, senseless "arguments," so that he/she cannot think straight on "the bible issue," and goes insane. It's called anti thinking.


Pay attention-I believe every word.

I am happy to hear that but your belief is NOT what I was writing about. The question is not "Do you believe the KJV is infallible" but "Is the KJV infallible." It is not, only God is infallible whereas the KJV is a dated translation of God's Words in English. Further you ask
Where is this pure, true, sound, certain "is given by inspiration" scripture(written)? Where can we get a copy?; I answered that ANY translation into English done by reputable scholars is the pure, sound, true, inspired scripture.

As for:
Bible correctors are the prime examples of what happens to a man/woman who is steeped in mysticism, Buddhism, agnosticism....a baseless faith, grounded in a powerless book, manifested in sophistry,speculation, subjectivity, senseless "arguments," so that he/she cannot think straight on "the bible issue," and goes insane. It's called anti thinking. That is rubbish of the first water. No one is 'correcting the bible;' because the KJV is not the standard by which English translations are judged.

john w
March 12th, 2015, 05:58 PM
I am happy to hear that but your belief is NOT what I was writing about. The question is not "Do you believe the KJV is infallible" but "Is the KJV infallible." It is not, only God is infallible....


" It is not, only God is infallible...."


False dichotomy-unscriptural:

1. How did you learn, that "God is infallible?"


2.Romans 9:17 KJV
For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.



Exodus 9:16 KJV
And in very deed for this cause have I raised thee up, for to shew in thee my power; and that my name may be declared throughout all the earth.


Genesis 21:10 KJV

Wherefore she said unto Abraham, Cast out this bondwoman and her son: for the son of this bondwoman shall not be heir with my son, even with Isaac.


Gal. 4:30 KJV
Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.

Thus, what scripture says, the LORD God says. The scripture makes no such distinction.


Thus, I, once again, demonstrate, my genius, by studying carefully the book, and providing you, chapter, and verse, to refute your, "Well, this is what a website taught me" humanism.

And what do we get from you? "Well, in my opinion......"


"whereas the KJV is a dated translation of God's Words in English. Further you ask ; I answered that ANY translation into English done by reputable scholars is the pure, sound, true, inspired scripture."-you

Observe, the deception:


" done by reputable scholars "


You decide who are "reputable scholars?" Who does? Other scholars?


By that "argument," every translation/version is the pure, sound, true, inspired scripture, as you could not object to anyone elses' assessment of who these "reputable scholars" are. Go ahead, and try.


Clueless.





As for: That is rubbish of the first water. No one is 'correcting the bible;' because the KJV is not the standard by which English translations are judged.


Made up. They are correcting any/all bibles/versions/translations.


Name that infallible source authority, the infallible standard, by which the KJB/others are corrected.






"only God is infallible...."

Made up-What saith the scriptures, about the scriptures?:


"How forcible are right words! but what doth your arguing reprove?" Job 6:25 KJV

"As for God, his way is perfect; the word of the LORD is tried: he is a buckler to all them that trust in him." 2 Samuel 22:31 KJV



"And the woman said to Elijah, Now by this I know that thou art a man of God, and that the word of the LORD in thy mouth is truth." 1 Kings 17:24 KJV



"The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times." Psalms 12:6 KJV


"As for God, his way is perfect: the word of the LORD is tried: he is a buckler to all those that trust in him." Psalms 18:30 KJV



"The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple." Psalms 19:7 KJV



"For the word of the LORD is right; and all his works are done in truth."[/B] Psalms 33:4 KJV



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



"And take not the word of truth utterly out of my mouth; for I have hoped in thy judgments." Psalms 119:43 KJV



"Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever." Psalms 119:160 KJV



"Have not I written to thee excellent things in counsels and knowledge, That I might make thee know the certainty of the words of truth; that thou mightest answer the words of truth to them that send unto thee?" Proverbs 22:20,21 KJV



"Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him." Proverbs 30:5 KJV



"...the scripture of truth...." Daniel 10:21 KJV



"Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth." John 17:17 KJV



"But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God." 2 Corinthians 4:2 KJV



"By the word of truth, by the power of God, by the armour of righteousness on the right hand and on the left,..." 2 Corinthians 6:7 KJV



"In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,..." Ephesians 1:13 KJV



"For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe." 1 Thessalonians 2:13 KJV



"...the word of truth." 2 Timothy 2:15 KJV



"Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures." James 1:18 KJV



"Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever." 1 Peter 1:23 KJV

Mocking You
March 12th, 2015, 06:03 PM
Name that infallible source authority, the infallible standard, by which the KJB/others are corrected.

The Geneva Bible. The predecessor of the KJV, using the same manuscripts as the KJV.

[Just thought I'd jump in here...Carry on.]

kiwimacahau
March 12th, 2015, 06:15 PM
God inspires humans beings to learn Hebrew / Aramaic and Greek as well as their mother tongues; God inspires folk by the Holy Spirit to dedicate their lives to translating the scriptures ; God is the infallible standard by which all Bibles are corrected. The KJV is not, it is neither infallible nor perfect.

kayaker
March 12th, 2015, 06:44 PM
Wasn't Jesus rejected by the nation over nothing?

If they did that to me I probably wouldn't care what they thought of my pedigree. Or my choice in a wife.

Would you?

You bring up a rather deep subject, Dial. Jesus was rejected because He was a descendant of Judah (prophesied progenitor of Messiah, Isaiah 65:5 KJV) via Judah's widowed, non-virgin, put-away, daughter-in-law, Tamar (Genesis 38:6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, KJV), I beg your patience. Said relationship was contrary to Leviticus 18:15 KJV, Leviticus 21:7 KJV, Leviticus 21:9 KJV, Leviticus 21:13 KJV, Leviticus 21:14 KJV, Leviticus 21:15 KJV. I realize this may be a bit of a stretch simply considering Jesus' detractors comment in John 8:41 KJV. So, please continue considering Leviticus 21:16, Leviticus 21:17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, KJV. Now, when you associate these words of of the Lord spoken to Moses to tell Aaron... Jesus' words to His detractors in John 8:15 KJV come better into view, along with John 8:46 KJV. Jesus was without spot or blemish, and that meant more than Jesus not having a withered hand. To my fallible rendering, being without spot or blemish meant Jesus also did not have a heritable illness/defect, the result of inbreeding in one's ancestry. Please consider John 9:1, 2, 3, 4, 5, most likely heritable blindness. Jesus didn't heal broken bones or the flu, or STD's.

Furthermore, Jesus had an unblemished ancestry considering Leviticus 21:7 KJV, Leviticus 21:14 KJV, Deuteronomy 7:1, 2, 3, affirmed by Joshua 3:9, 10, even affirmed some 1,400 years later by Ezra 9:1, 2, 3, 10:2, 3. The reason Rahab was left outside the camp (Joshua 6:23 KJV) was because she was a Canaanite, or at least one of those rebuked by Joshua 3:9, 10. The reason she was brought that close to camp, and spared utter destruction, was due to her impeccable faith. This was a clue for Canaanites to keep their noses clean revealing God's mercy.

Now, along the lines of Jews (generally speaking) rejecting Jesus; they whitewashed the Canaanite Rahab, saying she was 'converted,' contrary to the aforementioned, un-rescinded Mosaic law. Thereby, the 'Jews' 'sanctified' David's ancestry to make him king. But, they've not figured out Rahab the harlot was NOT in the lineage of David (Isaiah 6:9, 10, 11, 12). The 'Jews' whitewashed Ruth saying she was a 'converted' blood Moabite contrary to aforementioned, un-rescinded Mosaic law (Deuteronomy 23:3, 6). Thereby, the 'Jews' continued the 'sanctification' of David to make him king. But, they've not figured out Ruth was definitely NOT a blood Moabite. Most likely Ruth was a post-conquest 'daughter' of Ruben who inherited the land south of the Arnon river (the southern most border of the Land of Moab).

But, the 'Jews' wouldn't whitewash Jesus? Doesn't that sound a bit hypocritical? Consider Matthew 23:13, 14, 15, 23, 25, 27, 29 along with Revelation 2:9, 3:9. So, those alleged Jews who were behind this conspiracy during Jesus' day were the Shelanites (Numbers 26:20) hiding behind the somewhat ancestrally ambiguous title, "Jew." The Shelanites were Canaanite descendants of Judah, prophesied progenitor of Messiah (Isaiah 65:9) via his Canaanite wife (Genesis 38:1, 2, 1Chronicles 2:3), contrary to Deuteronomy 7:1, 2, 3, Joshua 3:9, 10, Ezra 9:1, 2, 3, 7, 10:2, 3. Prior to the Shelanite alleged 'Jews', their ancestors were the synagogue of Satan (Matthew 23:28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, who killed Abel?, Revelatino 2:9, 3:9).

The ISRAELITE "Jews" of Jesus' day, including Pharzites and Zaharites (via Tamar, Numbers 26:20), were deluded following the circumcised Shelanites holding the aforementioned Mosaic Laws over their heads: Leviticus 18:15, Leviticus 21:7 KJV, Leviticus 21:9 KJV, Leviticus 21:13 KJV, Leviticus 21:14 KJV, Leviticus 21:15 KJV. How about that... the Israelite Jews were duped by a pack of hypocrites! Well, I guess Jesus was more than right in ways that escape the multitudes: Matthew 23:13, 14, 15, 23, 25, 27, 29, Revelation 2:9, 3:9, with particular emphasis on Revelation 3:10 KJV.

I appreciate your notion of pedigree, Dial. I'm a bit of a mongrel myself, about 1/8th Cherokee. I'm Chief Blind Wild Hawg of the Buffalowlife tribe, LOL! Of course AFTER Jesus' conception, we both acknowledge pedigree is of no significance regarding entrance privileges into spiritual eternity, as Paul spoke. Our adoption papers were signed in Jesus' authentic Pharzite Jewish blood, btw. That was the problem Nicodemus had, he was 'blue-blooded,' we might say. On the flip side of that coin, Jesus' ancestry was utterly paramount to Him being an acceptable sacrifice.

As far as my choice of wife... let the record show that I highly recommend a medical evaluation to ascertain heritable genetic risks that one might be exposing their beloved future progeny to. The Jews do this on a regular basis, btw... another time, perhaps.

Thanks for your enduring patience, Dial... been cooking with my son this evening. Btw... if you want to know the reason the Catholics are so ANTI-solo... check out their TRANSLATION, they're not playing with a full deck. They don't perceive a choice, either. They surrendered their spiritual individuality to their hierarchal elite who only have rights space-docking with God. Of course, many Protestants can't fathom Matthew 8:19 KJV, Matthew 8:20 KJV, either.

kayaker

john w
March 12th, 2015, 07:02 PM
The Geneva Bible. The predecessor of the KJV, using the same manuscripts as the KJV.

[Just thought I'd jump in here...Carry on.]

Then you will get no quarrell, from me.

Study it, survey it, mediatate on it, and believe every word.

john w
March 12th, 2015, 07:06 PM
God inspires humans beings to learn Hebrew / Aramaic and Greek as well as their mother tongues; God inspires folk by the Holy Spirit to dedicate their lives to translating the scriptures ; God is the infallible standard by which all Bibles are corrected. The KJV is not, it is neither infallible nor perfect.

"God inspires," you chirp?


Translated: Clueless as to the biblical definition of "inspire"/"inspiration," but, instead, provides the secular definition.

Lovely.

"God is the infallible standard by which all Bibles are corrected."-you


Which means NADA, unless you have a "pipeline" directly to God.


=deception, subjectivity

john w
March 12th, 2015, 07:10 PM
God inspires humans beings to learn Hebrew / Aramaic and Greek as well as their mother tongues; God inspires folk by the Holy Spirit to dedicate their lives to translating the scriptures ; God is the infallible standard by which all Bibles are corrected. The KJV is not, it is neither infallible nor perfect.
__________________________________________________ ____________
God is the infallible standard by which all Bibles are corrected-you

Prove that anyone consulted God, in assessing whether "the originals" were perfect.


Since you consult God, obviously, give us this perfect bible, this pure, sure, sound, true....scripture, so that we can all go home. You've had how many years to do this? What's the problem, toots? Use God as the standard, and give us a pure, sure, sound, true....scripture. Do, be a dear.

Watch....This bible corrector does not believe we have this pure, sure, sound, true....scripture=all we have is a buncha "un inspired" fake bibles. That is the "doctrine" of bible correctors/agnostics-highly "unscriptural"...wait...what's "scripture?"
__________________________________________________ _____________
Prove that "the originals" were perfect.


Name that infallible/perfect source authority by which you correct any alleged "bible."



Let me guess: God


Deception.





Where can we get a copy of the true, pure, certain, sound......"the Word...Scripture"(your words)today? Does it have a name? Identify it. Name that "is given by inspiration"(not "was") scripture, that you can press to your heart, and claim, "This is the pure, true, certain, sure, sound..............word of God...I believe every word of it."

kiwimacahau
March 12th, 2015, 07:45 PM
Ah, KJV-onlyism; a heresy which equates what bible you use with whether or not you are an heir to salvation. You attack translators, you attack those who use other bibles. You ignore what I have said and prefer your own interpretation of my words. You are a dog in the manger, you will not yourself eat and you prevent others from eating as well.



Where can we get a copy of the true, pure, certain, sound......"the Word...Scripture"(your words)today? Does it have a name? Identify it. Name that "is given by inspiration"(not "was") scripture, that you can press to your heart, and claim, "This is the pure, true, certain, sure, sound..............word of God...I believe every word of it."

For the THIRD TIME, every English translation by reputable scholars is the Word of God. How much clearer do I need to be?

kayaker
March 13th, 2015, 07:05 AM
Ah, KJV-onlyism; a heresy which equates what bible you use with whether or not you are an heir to salvation. You attack translators, you attack those who use other bibles. You ignore what I have said and prefer your own interpretation of my words. You are a dog in the manger, you will not yourself eat and you prevent others from eating as well.

For the THIRD TIME, every English translation by reputable scholars is the Word of God. How much clearer do I need to be?

I appreciate your post to Jay Dubya, your assessment and analogy are quite keen, btw. Your message was clear the FIRST TIME, also. Have you ever previously tried to have an intelligent conversation with a drunkard? With respect to your analogy of the 'situation', I find Jesus' mention of end-time scenarios appropriate, with particular emphasis on "meat in due season" in v.45, and "eating and drinking with the drunken" in v.49, I suggest Matthew 24:43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51.

Jay Dubya undoubtedly "believes every single word" of the KJB. That's easily said by one who is more than a few rungs short of the truth found in those words, that he avoids like the plague. I suspect Simon Birch may have a different perspective of arrogance at this stage of the game, but I do forgive him for the two neg reps I got from him on this thread, two of five in my over two years on TOL. Two I got from a 'drunken' Cathoholic dude, which is no surprise in that case. I return favor in those cases. 'Drunkeness' is remarkably non-denominational, btw. I just got hit by friendly fire, but I do prefer to be openly debated before getting a negative rep.

Globally, I accept your statement, "every English translation by reputable scholars is the Word of God". On the finer distinction of "truth" within those translations, I do have some dry bones of Ezekiel 37 to pick over. I would like to imagine you've come to the conclusion Genesis 4:23 KJV, and Genesis 4:24 KJV are quite pivotal verses. If not previously so, then I am indeed honored.

Translation diction vastly impacts the renderings of readers who trust those authors. I pray their divine inspiration in both cases. Context is analogous to the theme of a message. Is it asking too much of you to grasp the translational differences in one sentence from those two verses? Please ask yourself: Did Lamech kill two people, or one? Was Lamech physically injured during this event?

NIV: I have killed a man for wounding me, a young man for injuring me.

ASV: I have slain a man for wounding me, And a young man for bruising me:

NKJV: I have killed a man for wounding me, Even a young man for hurting me.

Catholic Bible: I have killed a man for wounding me, a young man for bruising me.

The Complete Jewish Bible: I have slain a man by wounding (him) and a child by bruising (him).

Does it not stand to reason that knowing specifically whom Lamech killed impacts the translators’ diction? Who did Lamech kill, Kiwi? How many people did he kill? Why did Lamech kill anyone in the first place? Was Lamech physically injured in the process? Did Lamech experience any remorse?

KJV: I have slain a man to my wounding, and a young man to my hurt.

So, Kiwi… I appreciate the global point you made about translators, sincerely I do. Yet, I have to ask you, Kiwi… Are your new ‘converts’ getting any closer to the truth with those “better translations” you offer to them? You possess enormous responsibility suggesting “better translations” to new converts entrusting their spiritual welfare to you. Trust me… I entirely imagine the weight of this burden. People only physically die when I make mistakes, and I’m only innocent of malice and forethought. Know that my prayers are for your sobriety in pursuit of truth, this moment.

kayaker

Dialogos
March 13th, 2015, 08:23 AM
I own what I think are all the major translations of Scripture. I have studied them, as well as their underlying manuscripts, and consult them often. But at the end of the day I have to make a choice such that I will be judged by or I will judge—and judge I must. Why? When I am confronted with conflicting versions of Scripture translations, I am compelled to make a choice, for I believe the holy scriptures are to be read with an high and reverent esteem of them; with a firm persuasion that they are the very word of God (WLC (http://www.reformed.org/documents/wlc_w_proofs/index.html)-Q.157). If we are taught from Scripture to hear the Word of the Lord, that is, to hear and not bring up all manner of questions criticizing the Word of the Lord, then this convinces me that I cannot in good conscience hold conflicting versions in reverent esteem as if both versions are the word of God.


AMR,

I understand where you are coming from. Moreso, I have always appreciated your stalwart stand for the truth, your irenic tone toward those who aren’t picking a fight and your undying commitment to the doctrines of grace. I also hold the Holy Scriptures in highest esteem. I have also studied the differences between the Textus Receptus, the Majority Text and the Critical Texts and I have come to a different conclusion than you have. Largely for historical reasons.

First, the KJV Translators themselves pointed out there is value in consulting differing translations.



Therefore as S. Augustine saith, that variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: [S. Aug. 2. de doctr. Christian. cap. 14.] so diversity of signification and sense in the margin, where the text is no so clear, must needs do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded. We know that Sixtus Quintus expressly forbiddeth, that any variety of readings of their vulgar edition, should be put in the margin, [Sixtus 5. praef. Bibliae.] (which though it be not altogether the same thing to that we have in hand, yet it looketh that way) but we think he hath not all of his own side his favorers, for this conceit. They that are wise, had rather have their judgments at liberty in differences of readings, than to be captivated to one, when it may be the other.

The question I had to wrestle with in my own evaluation of this issue is, “why would the variety of translations stop being profitable for the finding out of the sense of the scriptures just because the KJV translators had finished the first edition of the KJV?

Furthermore, why would the consultation of Greek and Hebrew texts be discouraged when the KJV translation committee used textual criticism in arriving at the KJV. They compared other translations, they compared and contrasted the versions of Erasmus that they had with the texts from Stephanus and Beza. They even put alternate readings in the margins of the 1611 version of the KJV.

And here is the rational for why they did just that.



Yet for all that it cannot be dissembled, that partly to exercise and whet our wits, partly to weane the curious from loathing of them for their every-where-plainenesse, partly also to stirre up our devotion to crave the assistance of Gods spirit by prayer, and lastly, that we might be forward to seeke ayd of our brethren by conference, and never scorne those that be not in all respects so complete as they should bee, being to seeke in many things our selves, it hath pleased God in his divine providence, heere and there to scatter wordes and sentences of that difficultie and doubtfulnesse, not in doctrinall points that concerne salvation, (for in such it hath beene vouched that the Scriptures are plaine) but in matters of lesse moment, that fearefulnesse would better beseeme us then confidence, and if we will resolve, to resolve upon modestie with S.Augustine, (though not in this same case altogether, yet upon the same ground) Melius est dubitare de occultis, quàm litigare de incertis, it is better to make doubt of those things which are secret, then to strive about those things that are uncertaine.
(Underline added)


Here are a few examples of those notes:
1 Cor 2:4 “Or persuasible”
1 Cor 2:15 “Or discerneth
1 Cor 3:9 “Or, tillage”
1 Cor 3:17, “Or destroy”

Now, I think it is helpful for us to consider why these men sought to provide alternative readings in the first place. I am not faulting the KJV translators for doing so, quite to the contrary, I think it is quite helpful to be given the freedom to do the hard work of bible study rather than be told that “this” or “that” reading is the right reading because it is the King James Bible and to question the decisions of the translation committee is heresy.

I believe it was Spurgeon who said, “the best of men, are men at best.”

Should we not presume this to be true of the faithful men laboring over Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza in order to present to the King a translation the whole English empire could get behind?

Interestingly, I have an edition of the 1611 KJV on my bookshelf and it has those notes. I also have a 1762 Cambridge edition that doesn’t.

Which one is the “real” King James Bible?

It is my understanding that the 1762 isn’t even the last edition, I believe the last revision of the KJV was in 1679.




For me this begins with confession that the divine revelation of God is that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God, and that I and others who so confess the same are the real successors of Peter, all speaking by the influence of the Holy Spirit.


Amen!

Do you think that King James himself shared that sentiment?
Scotland’s King James the 6th (England’s King James the 1st), was not exactly a great friend to the puritans. When Prebyterian delegates urged James to consider revising the ecclesiastical structure of the Church of England James’ famous reply was, “No Bishop, No King!”

Thus the episcopal structure was retained in order to keep the monarchy strong and the Presbyterian structure was rejected. King James was happy to accede to the request for a new translation as the Geneva bible had far too many marginal notes that could be construed to be critical of the monarchical structure of 16th-17th centuries and encouraging reforms that James found uncomfortable.

Ergo, the puritans that landed on the shores of the New Colonies favored the Geneva Bible not the KJV.

I have heard that King James gave instructions to the committee on what words could and could not be used in the translation process and kind of marginal notes could and could not be used in explanation of the text.

I have also heard some say that this is myth, revisionist history.

Either way, I think it is reasonable to assume that political considerations were not absent the minds of the translators.
King James was, after all, King James. And in a monarchy (even the kind following the Magna Carta) a scholar’s honest assessment of a text must be at least marginally tempered by the desire to keep oneself out of the tower of London and in the good graces of the king.

One is justified in asking the historical question, “to what extend was the oversight of the translation of the KJV influenced by King James’ thoughts and desires on monarchy?”

One of the modern luxuries enjoyed by the scholars who sit down to work together in the endeavor of translating the ancient texts is that they are free from the pressures associated with a monarch overseeing the process.


When I examine what version was predominantly quoted from by the Reformers and the Puritans that have come before me, the KJV stands out for I believe, as it was similarly understood by the forefathers, that the KJV excels because the version

I think that it is only fair to point out that the KJV has indeed been mightily used in the hands of godly men in bringing the Word of God on the mission field and in the pulpit.

My favorite historical preacher, C.H. Spurgeon, used the KJV almost exclusively even though the Revised Version was gaining some prominence. Yet he was not slavishly tied to it and on occasion made use of the Revised Version.

As the following excerpts articulate:


Do not needlessly amend our authorized version. It is faulty in many places, but still it is a grand work taking it for all in all, and it is unwise to be making every old lady distrust the only Bible she can get at, or what is more likely, mistrust you for falling out with her cherished treasure. Correct where correction must be for truth's sake, but never for the vainglorious display of your critical ability.
http://www.spurgeon.org/misc/c&cl2.htm



Concerning the fact of difference between the Revised and the Authorized Versions, I would say that no Baptist should ever fear any honest attempt to produce the correct text and an accurate interpretation of the Old and New Testaments. For many years Baptists have insisted upon it that we ought to have the Word of God translated in the best possible manner, whether it would confirm certain religious opinions and practices, or work against them. All we want is the exact mind of the Spirit as far as we can get it. Beyond all other Christians we are concerned in this, seeing we have no other sacred Book. We have no Prayer Book or binding creed, or authoritative minutes of conferences. We have nothing but the Bible and we would have that as pure as ever we can get it. By the best and most honest scholarship that can be found, we desire that the common version may be purged of every blunder of transcribers, addition of human ignorance or human knowledge so that the Word of God may come to us as it came from His own hand. I confess that it looks a grievous thing to part with words which we thought were part and parcel of Luke, but as they are not in the oldest copies and must be given up, we will make capital out of their omission by seeing in that fact the wisdom of the great Preacher who did not speak upon cheering Truths of God when they were not needed and might have overlaid His seasonable rebuke. Although we have not the sentence in Luke, we do have it in Isaiah, and that is quite enough for me.
http://www.spurgeongems.org/vols25-27/chs1604.pdf

Spurgeon here speaking, of course, of the Lord’s prayer.



(1) drew upon the best Hebrew and Greek manuscripts;

While I appreciate your wisdom on a great many matters I do not agree that this is true.

I think that they made good use of the very limited manuscript testimony at their disposal and did a commendable job of textual criticism with the manuscripts they had. Erasmus had a number of challenges with his work, not the least of which were limited number of manuscripts at his disposal (between 10 and 12 very late manuscripts, probably no earlier than the 10th century), and the haste that he employed in translation to get the work done before someone else stole his thunder. Unfortunately Erasmus’ errors made in haste bled into the KJV and some of those errors are still reflected in the text today.

I won’t belabor all of them but, as I am sure you are aware, Erasmus was forced to back translate a portion of Revelation (specifically Rev 22:15-21) from the Vulgate as the transcript he had was incomplete. That resulted in Erasmus making a number of errors inadvertently and creating over 15 instances where his Greek manuscript is unsubstantiated by any older Greek texts, Alexandrian, Byzantine, or otherwise. For example, at Rev 22:19 the KJV has “book of life” instead of "tree of life." "Book" is unsubstantiated by any Greek text we have today. It literally has no Greek manuscript support.

To be honest, why anyone would refuse to consult another translation other than the KJV when studying Rev 22:15-21 is beyond me.



(2) was translated with a conservative philosophy of translation;

Most certainly so. Although, again, translating for a monarch comes with its own political challenges.


(3) deployed great wisdom when using transliteration;

I think there are some inconsistencies in translation that might be noted. For example, in Acts 3:19 ὅπως is translated “when.” A clear mistake, and one that was probably an error from relying on the Geneva Bible for this verse. All other translations of ὅπως are correctly translated as “that,” “so that,” “in order that” or “how.”
Now, we have to have a just balance, don’t we? No bible is perfectly translated because there are no perfect translators. So I don’t think that the modern versions avoid translation errors either. There are times when I read my ESV compared to the KJV and side with the KJV when all research has been exhausted. Nevertheless, there is a tendency to put the KJV on a pedestal and claim that it has immunity from honest, scholarly scrutiny. There is a sense in which any criticism of the choices of the KJV translators are viewed as criticism of the very word of God. The problem with that viewpoint is obvious from a reformed perspective.

We don’t believe in the inerrancy of the magisterium. The pope doesn’t speak infallibly Ex Cathedra and in the same way the translators of the KJV don’t get the presumption that they translated infallibly from their chairs either. Erasmus’ work is not covered by the umbrella of some “sacred tradition.”

Good textual criticism does not seek to criticize God’s Holy Word, it seeks to reveal it. Good textual criticism calls into question some of the decisions of godly men made in an attempt to translate God’s Holy Word because “the best of men, are men at best.”

In my opinion, when that reticence to take a second look at some of the curious passages in the KJV dissipates the KJV becomes a much more useful tool in the hands of a faithful servant of the Lord.

Spurgeon had it right, I think. “.Correct where correction must be for truth's sake, but never for the vainglorious display of your critical ability.”

The rest of your listed points go undisputed in my way of thinking.



(4) matched the majesty of the style of Scripture in dignified and very elegant English;

It certainly sounds like it today, I think that in 1611 it was meant to be in common vernacular so that it could be read aloud, and understood in public which accords with your 5th point.


(5) when read according to the purpose for which the Scriptures were delivered by God, is easily understood; and,
(6) makes the sense of Scripture clearer through the use of italicized words.

I recognize that some complain that the KJV uses English that was not spoken by English-speaking persons of any time in history.

Now you introduce the thought of Turretin:


Turretin, on the authority of translations of the Scriptures, writes that while the authority of a translation from its original is not to be made equal to the original, nevertheless all authority must not be denied to versions. Clearly, the words and the sense of Scripture are to be distinguished. The words of any translation are not inspired words, but the sense that these words conveyed, when accurately translated is inspired.

Continuing, Turretin observes, Although any version made by fallible men cannot be considered divine and infallible with respect to the terms, yet it can well be considered such with respect to the things, since it faithfully expresses the divine truth of the sources. On the foundation of our faith, I also note what Turretin has to say: Thus faith depends not on the authority of the interpreter or minister, but is built upon the truth and authenticity (authentia) of the things contained in the versions. (See: Francis Turretin Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 1:123-127, available here (http://www.amazon.com/Institutes-Elenctic-Theology-vol-set/dp/0875524567).

If Turretin was on to something here, and I believe he was, and that we believers should be building our faith upon the things contained in the version, I fail to see how a proper function of the ministry is to lay out contradictory views, or things that are to be believed. Furthermore, lest I be misunderstood, I have no argument with seeking to update the language of the Scriptures of the Reformation, if such an effort were for the goal of making that Scripture more intelligible. In fact, I would heartily commend such an effort.

I will have to defer to your expertise when it comes to Turretin. I have wanted to be able to study his works for some time now but have not found the occasion. I am in the process now of reading “The Atonement of Christ” though I think it is an edited edition of his.

Nevertheless, I wonder to what extent the following quotes I found from secondary sources lend some help to our discussion.



The question does not concern the irregular writing of words or the punctuation or the various readings (which all acknowledge do often occur); or whether the copies which we have so agree with the originals as to vary from them not even in a little point or letter. Rather the question is whether they so differ as to make the genuine corrupt and to hinder us from receiving the original text as a rule of faith and practice.
The question is not as to the particular corruption of some manuscripts or as to the errors which have crept into the books of particular editions through the negligence of copyists or printers. All acknowledge the existence of many such small corruptions. The question is whether there are universal corruptions and errors so diffused through all the copies (both manuscript and edited) as that they cannot be restored and corrected by any collation of various copies, or of Scripture itself and of parallel passages. Are there real and true, and not merely apparent, contradictions? We deny the former.
The reasons are: (1) The Scriptures are inspired of God (theopneustos, 2 Tim 3:16). The word of God cannot lie (Ps 19:8-9; Heb 6:18); cannot pass away and be destroyed (Mat 5:18); shall endure forever (1 Pet 1:25); and is truth itself (John 17:17). For how could such things be predicated of it, if it contained dangerous contradictions, and if God suffered either the sacred writers to err and to slip in memory, or incurable blemishes to creep into it?

(Marlowe quoting Turretin (http://www.bible-researcher.com/turretin-text.html))

I agree with Turretin here. I agree that there are no “incurable blemishes” in the text and I also agree that God did not suffer the sacred writers to err. But the question that must be asked is where does one start?

Do we start with the assumption that the KJV is the standard?
Why the KJV?
Why not the Geneva Bible, or the Tyndale or the the Wycliffe text? Why English?
Why not start with the Luther’s translation?

These were all godly men who transformed the world with their fidelity to Christ’s kingdom. And yet we saw fit to improve upon their work. Why should we not do the same with the KJV?

Should we not honor the work of the men whose labor changed the world, and yet endeavor to improve upon their work?



Unfortunately, it is my opinion, having studied carefully for many years all the translations whose editors have claimed this very goal, that in pursuit of the goal, changes have been introduced that change the meaning of the English Scriptures, changing the things contained in the version, supra Turretin, and the very word of God, supra WLC (http://www.reformed.org/documents/wlc_w_proofs/index.html)-Q.157.

I agree entirely that we cannot improve upon the Word of God, but even Turretin was willing to question the English text of his day.

For example:


This [i.e. that Cainan in Luke 3:36 is spurious] is plainly proved: (1) by the authority of Moses and of the books of Chronicles which, in the genealogical records formed in three places (Gen. 10:24; 11:13; 1 Chron. 1:18), make no mention of him; (2) the Chaldee paraphrases which uniformly omit Cainan in the book of Genesis and Chronicles; (3) Josephus does not mention him, nor Berosus guided by him, nor Africanus whose words Eusebius quotes in his Chronicorum (cf. 1.16.13 [PG 19.153-54]); (4) the sacred chronology would thus be disturbed and brought into doubt in the history of Moses, if the years of Cainan are inserted between Arphaxad and Sala. Abraham would not be the tenth from Noah as Moses asserts, but the eleventh. (5) It does not exist in any of the Codices. Our Beza testifies that it is not found in his most ancient manuscript (Annotationes maiores in Novum ... Testamentum, Pars prior [1594], p. 262 on Luke 3:36). Ussher ("De Cainano Arphaxadi filio" in Chronologia Sacra 6; cf. Whole Works [1847-64], 11:558) asserts that he saw the book of Luke written in Greek-Latin on the most ancient vellum, in characters somewhat large without breathings and accents (which having been brought from Greece to France was laid up in the monastery of St. Irenaeus in the suburbs of Lyons; and being discovered in the year 1562 was afterward carried to England and presented to the University of Cambridge), and in it he could not find Cainan. Scaliger in his prologue to the chronicle of Eusebius ("Prolegomena," Thesaurus temporum Eusebii .. chronicorum canonum [1606/1968], 1:ii) affirms that Cainan is lacking in the most ancient copies of Luke. Whatever the case may be, even if this passage proves to be a mistake, the authenticity of Luke's gospel cannot be called in question on that account: (a) because the corruption is not universal; (b) this error is of little consequence and a ready means of correcting it is furnished by Moses, so that there was no necessity for that learned man Vossius to throw doubts upon the purity of the Hebrew manuscript in order to establish the authenticity of the Septuagint. 3
(Marlow Quoting Turretin (http://www.bible-researcher.com/turretin-text.html))


So, yes, Turretin appeared to argue, quite ardently, that the Word of God cannot be improved upon. But it also appears that Turretin did not think that the translators were infallible and that there was cause to question the choices of the translators when evidence presents itself. It appears that here Turretin thinks that there is still work to be done by the servants of God in uncovering the Word of God.
Here Turretin exemplifies that he is willing to look for wisdom as for silver and search for it as for hidden treasure.

Now, I happen to think that Turretin turned out to be wrong here. Codex D is the only manuscript that omits “Cainan” and so the KJV is right. But it does well illustrate that Turretin's passion for the Word of God did not preclude him from asking questions about the choices of translators.

I wonder, AMR, if you might agree with Marlowe's assesment of Turretin's view of textual criticism.



Textual Criticism in the Writings of Francis Turretin

Nevertheless, the thing to be noticed here is that Turretin's concept of providential preservation in no way prevented him from calling the commonly received text "corrupt" in some details, and he points to the oldest available manuscripts as a superior authority. In addition to these, he also refers to the evidence afforded by ancient versions (the "Chaldee paraphrases" or Aramaic Targums) and to patristic quotations (Eusebius). In short, the question is to be resolved by referring to ancient copies, versions, and fathers, the same sources favored by textual critics today. Turretin supposes that by the preservation of these oldest witnesses, from which the more recent copies may be corrected, God has provided the means for the restoration of the text — and in this indirect way he has preserved every detail of the true text. Presumably, Turretin would say that God then makes use of text-critical scholarship to bring about the necessary corrections in due time.
(Marlowe, 2003 (http://www.bible-researcher.com/turretin-text.html))


In any event, I have enjoyed reading your post in this thread.

everready
March 13th, 2015, 09:02 AM
Here's a small (very small) sampling of words removed in the NIV!

Matt. 6:13, "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen."
Matt. 15:8, "This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth"
Matt. 19:9, "and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery."
Matt. 20:7, "and whatsoever is right, that shall ye receive."
Matt. 20:16, "for many be called, but few chosen."
Matt. 20:22, "and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with"
Matt. 25:13, "wherein the Son of Man cometh."
Matt. 27:35, "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"
Mark 6:11, "Verily I say unto you, it shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city."
Mark 10:21, "take up the cross."
Luke 1:28, "blessed art thou among women"
Luke 4:4, "but by every word of God"
Luke 4:8, "get thee behind me Satan"
Luke 4:18, "he hath sent me to heal the broken hearted"
Luke 11:2-4, "Our ... which art in ... Thy will be done, as in heaven so in earth... but deliver us from evil"
John 1:27, "is preferred before me"
John 3:13, "which is in heaven"
John 3:15, "should not perish"
John 11:41, "from the place where the dead was laid"
John 16:16, "because I go to the Father"
Acts 10:6, "he shall tell thee what thou oughtest to do"
Acts 15:18, "Known unto God are all his works"
Acts 20:24, "But none of these things move me"
Acts 23:9, "let us not fight against God"
Rom. 8:1, "who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit"
Rom. 13:9, "Thou shalt not bear false witness"
I Cor. 6:20, "and in your spirit which are God's"
I Cor. 11:24; "Take eat... broken"
II Cor. 10:4, "but mighty through God"
Gal. 3:1, "that you should not obey the truth"
Eph. 5:30, "of his flesh, and of his bones"
Phil. 3:16, "let us mind the same thing"
I Tim. 6:5, "from such wthdraw thyself"
Heb. 7:21, "after the order of Melchisedec"
I Pet. 1:22, "through the Spirit"
I Pet. 4:14, "on their part he is evil spoken of, but on your part he is glorified"
I John 4:3, "Christ is come in the flesh"
I John 5:13, "and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God"
Rev. 1:11, "I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last"
Rev. 5:14, "him that liveth for ever and ever"
Rev. 14:5, "before the throne of God"
Rev. 21:24, "of them which are saved"

Jesus Christ says, in Luke 4:4, ". . . It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by EVERY WORD of God." But not according to the NIV! In fact, the NIV even "TAKETH AWAY" the last half of Luke 4:4 - "BUT BY EVERY WORD OF GOD"!

And Jesus Christ was quoting Deuteronomy 8:3 to Satan! Does the NIV PERversion seriously think the Lord Jesus Christ does NOT know Duet. 8:3???

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/niv_exposed.htm

everready

Mocking You
March 13th, 2015, 09:12 AM
The NIV "TAKETH AWAY" 64,576 words!
Here's a small (very small) sampling of words removed in the NIV!

Perhaps the KJV has added 60,000 words. It's the Bible based on the TR, the most copied, recopied, recopied, and recopied manuscript ever.

Can I play too?

If you want to make comparisons between translations, how about these verses? NIV vs. KJV....

Jude 25
25to the only God our Savior be glory, majesty, power and authority, through Jesus Christ our Lord, before all ages, now and forevermore! Amen. [NIV]

25To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen. [KJV]

KJV OMITS Jesus Christ our Lord


John 14:14
14You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it. [NIV]

14If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it. [KJV]

KJV OMITS "me", removing Jesus from the verse


Romans 1:4
4and who through the Spirit of holiness was declared with power to be the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord. [NIV]

4And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead [KJV]

KJV OMITS Jesus Christ our Lord


Mark 3:20
20Then Jesus entered a house, and again a crowd gathered, so that he and his disciples were not even able to eat. [NIV]

20And the multitude cometh together again, so that they could not so much as eat bread. [KJV]

KJV OMITS Jesus and he and his disciples


Romans 8:16
16The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God's children. [NIV]

16The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: [KJV]

KJV changes the Holy Spirit from a person of the Trinity into an impersonal "it".


Acts 4:25
25You spoke by the Holy Spirit through the mouth of your servant, our father David:
" 'Why do the nations rage
and the peoples plot in vain? [NIV]

25Who by the mouth of thy servant David hast said, Why did the heathen rage, and the people imagine vain things? [KJV]

KJV OMITS Holy Spirit, denying inspiration



Colossians 2:9
9For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form, [NIV]

9For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. [KJV]

KJV changes "Christ" to "him", uses archaic "Godhead" instead of "Deity"


Acts 10:48; KJV: the Lord; NIV: Jesus Christ

Luke 20:20, Acts 3;16, Acts 13:24 KJV: his; NIV: Jesus

Matt. 17:24, Matt. 20:29, Luke 10:38 KJV: they; NIV: Jesus and his disciples

Acts 18:25 KJV: the Lord; NIV: Jesus

Mark 16:19, 2 Thess. 2:8 KJV: Lord; NIV: Spirit of Jesus

Acts 13:38,Heb. 3:3 KJV: this man; NIV: Jesus

Mark 3:20, Mark 7:19, John 10:40 KJV [nothing]; NIV: Jesus



KJV removes God as “Holy One“, instead uses generic term “holy”

Proverbs 9:10 The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and knowledge of the Holy One is understanding. [NIV]

Proverbs 9:10 The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, And the knowledge of the Holy One is understanding. [NKJV]

Proverbs 9:10 The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding. [KJV]


KJV is soft on homosexuality, changes homosexual offenses to ambiguous "abusers of themselves with mankind".

1 Cor 6:9 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders. [NIV]

9Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind [KJV]



KJV denies Deity of Christ

Rom 9:5 Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen. [NIV]

Rom. 9:5 Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen. [KJV]


Phillipians 2:6 Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, [NIV]

Phillipians 2:6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: [KJV]


KJV revised itself, adds words

KJV 1611 edition, 1 John 5:12
He that hath the Son, hath life; and he that hath not the Son hath not life.

KJV, newer edition (adds words):
He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.



Titus 2:13

Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; [KJV]

while we wait for the blessed hope— the glorious appearing of our great God and Saviour, Jesus Christ, [NIV]

KJV: …glorious appearing of the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ…are they two different entities?


Your kingdom is an everlasting kingdom,
and your dominion endures through all generations.
The LORD is trustworthy in all he promises
and faithful in all he does.
Psalm 145:13 NIV

Thy kingdom is an everlasting kingdom,
and thy dominion endureth throughout all generations.
Psalm 145:13 KJV

KJV removes second half of the verse.

everready
March 13th, 2015, 09:18 AM
The LIES used to promote the NIV. . .

LIE 1) The NIV "just" updates the "archaic" words and makes it "easier to understand". Nothing is "really changed.
FACT: The NIV denys the deity of Jesus Christ; the virgin birth; glorifies Satan; openly lie; removes 17 complete verses and 64,576 words!

LIE 2) The NIV is easier to read and understand.
FACT: According to a Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level research study, The King James Bible is by far the easiest! Out of 26 different categories - the King James graded easier in a whopping 23! In selected analysis, the KJB average grade level was 5.8 - the NIV was 8.4! (New Age Bible Versions, Riplinger, pp.195-209)

LIE 3) Older and more reliable manuscripts have been discovered since the King James Bible.
FACT: Dr. Sam Gipp writes, "The fact is, that the King James translators had ALL OF THE READINGS available to them that modern critics have available to them today." (The Answer Book, Gipp, p.110) And furthermore, it is a well documented fact that 90 - 95 per cent of all readings agree with the King James Bible!

LIE 4) The NIV is more accurate.
FACT: The KJB is a literal word for word translation. When the translators had to add words for sentence structure they are in italics. The NIV uses "dynamic equivalence". Rather than a word for word translation, they add, change and subtract to make the verse say what they "thought" it should! The Preface to the NIV even says, ". . .they have striven for more than a word-for-word translation. . ."

everready

Mocking You
March 13th, 2015, 09:35 AM
The LIES used to promote the NIV. . .


LIE 1) The NIV "just" updates the "archaic" words and makes it "easier to understand". Nothing is "really changed.
FACT: The NIV denys the deity of Jesus Christ; the virgin birth; glorifies Satan; openly lie; removes 17 complete verses and 64,576 words!


When compared to the NIV, the KJV denies deity of Christ, is soft on homosexuality, and removes Jesus' and Christ's name many times.



LIE 2) The NIV is easier to read and understand.
FACT: According to a Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level research study, The King James Bible is by far the easiest! Out of 26 different categories - the King James graded easier in a whopping 23! In selected analysis, the KJB average grade level was 5.8 - the NIV was 8.4! (New Age Bible Versions, Riplinger, pp.195-209)


Let's take a look...

Ezekiel 41:7 And there was an enlarging, and a winding about still upward to the side chambers: for the winding about of the house went still upward round about the house: therefore the breadth of the house was still upward, and so increased from the lowest chamber to the highest by the midst. [KJV] (Huh?)

Ezekiel 41: 7 The side rooms all around the temple were wider at each successive level. The structure surrounding the temple was built in ascending stages, so that the rooms widened as one went upward. A stairway went up from the lowest floor to the top floor through the middle floor. [NIV]
------

2 Corinthians 6:11-13
11 O ye Corinthians, our mouth is open unto you, our heart is enlarged. 12 Ye are not straitened in us, but ye are straitened in your own bowels. 13 Now for a recompence in the same, (I speak as unto my children,) be ye also enlarged. [KJV]

2 Cor. 6:11 We have spoken freely to you, Corinthians, and opened wide our hearts to you. 12 We are not withholding our affection from you, but you are withholding yours from us. 13 As a fair exchange—I speak as to my children—open wide your hearts also. [NIV]
------
Luke 14:10 But when thou art bidden, go and sit down in the lowest room; that when he that bade thee cometh, he may say unto thee, Friend, go up higher: then shalt thou have worship in the presence of them that sit at meat with thee. [KJV]

Luke 14:10 But when you are invited, take the lowest place, so that when your host comes, he will say to you, ‘Friend, move up to a better place.’ Then you will be honored in the presence of all the other guests. [KJV]


LOL! You know if you appeal to Gil Riplinger for "knowledge" you are in a heap of trouble.



LIE 3) Older and more reliable manuscripts have been discovered since the King James Bible.
FACT: Dr. Sam Gipp writes, "The fact is, that the King James translators had ALL OF THE READINGS available to them that modern critics have available to them today." (The Answer Book, Gipp, p.110) And furthermore, it is a well documented fact that 90 - 95 per cent of all readings agree with the King James Bible!

This is a fact, not a lie. Older and more reliable manuscripts have been discovered since the KJV.



LIE 4) The NIV is more accurate.
FACT: The KJB is a literal word for word translation. When the translators had to add words for sentence structure they are in italics. The NIV uses "dynamic equivalence". Rather than a word for word translation, they add, change and subtract to make the verse say what they "thought" it should! The Preface to the NIV even says, ". . .they have striven for more than a word-for-word translation. . ."


This is very subjective. A translation ought to say what the original manuscript was trying to convey. Sometimes a literal word-for-word translation is inaccurate, esp. when translating idioms and colloquialisms.

everready
March 13th, 2015, 09:40 AM
You attack Gods word with a vengeance, why?

everready

Mocking You
March 13th, 2015, 09:46 AM
You attack Gods word with a vengeance, why?

everready

I'm not attacking God's word. I am trying to educate people that the KJV is not a specially inspired translation. It is not God's perfectly preserved word for the English language. People that use other Bible translations besides the KJV are not rejecting the "true" and "real" Bible.

I reject the idea that:
The King James Bible Alone = The Word of God Alone.

everready
March 13th, 2015, 09:49 AM
I'll leave you with this, its about a couple of wolves in sheep's clothing that were allowed to doctor the scriptures.

People are now saying that the Authorized King James Bible is wrong because they have believed the scholarship of these two blaspheming infidels. You will read their words for yourself in this article.

Westcott and Hort's Greek New Testament is the "source text" for many of today's modern Bible translations. These men were hereticks. [The personal letters of Hort and Westcott sound like the letters of men of the Jesuit order (that is, if you know the Roman Catholic Jesuits. If you are a Christian, I highly suggest that you read the The Deception Series. Not only will you know more about the Jesuits and their activities, you will become more acquainted with yourself, the problems with the visible church, Revelation 17, and these end times.)

Again, Westcott and Hort's Greek New Testament is the "source text" for today's modern Bible versions. Let us examine what Westcott and Hort actually believed.

http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/hort.htm

everready

Simon Baker
March 13th, 2015, 09:49 AM
Perhaps the KJV has added 60,000 words. It's the Bible based on the TR, the most copied, recopied, recopied, and recopied manuscript ever.

Can I play too?

If you want to make comparisons between translations, how about these verses? NIV vs. KJV....

Jude 25
25to the only God our Savior be glory, majesty, power and authority, through Jesus Christ our Lord, before all ages, now and forevermore! Amen. [NIV]

25To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen. [KJV]

KJV OMITS Jesus Christ our Lord


John 14:14
14You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it. [NIV]

14If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it. [KJV]

KJV OMITS "me", removing Jesus from the verse


Romans 1:4
4and who through the Spirit of holiness was declared with power to be the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord. [NIV]

4And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead [KJV]

KJV OMITS Jesus Christ our Lord


Mark 3:20
20Then Jesus entered a house, and again a crowd gathered, so that he and his disciples were not even able to eat. [NIV]

20And the multitude cometh together again, so that they could not so much as eat bread. [KJV]

KJV OMITS Jesus and he and his disciples


Romans 8:16
16The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God's children. [NIV]

16The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: [KJV]

KJV changes the Holy Spirit from a person of the Trinity into an impersonal "it".


Acts 4:25
25You spoke by the Holy Spirit through the mouth of your servant, our father David:
" 'Why do the nations rage
and the peoples plot in vain? [NIV]

25Who by the mouth of thy servant David hast said, Why did the heathen rage, and the people imagine vain things? [KJV]

KJV OMITS Holy Spirit, denying inspiration



Colossians 2:9
9For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form, [NIV]

9For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. [KJV]

KJV changes "Christ" to "him", uses archaic "Godhead" instead of "Deity"


Acts 10:48; KJV: the Lord; NIV: Jesus Christ

Luke 20:20, Acts 3;16, Acts 13:24 KJV: his; NIV: Jesus

Matt. 17:24, Matt. 20:29, Luke 10:38 KJV: they; NIV: Jesus and his disciples

Acts 18:25 KJV: the Lord; NIV: Jesus

Mark 16:19, 2 Thess. 2:8 KJV: Lord; NIV: Spirit of Jesus

Acts 13:38,Heb. 3:3 KJV: this man; NIV: Jesus

Mark 3:20, Mark 7:19, John 10:40 KJV [nothing]; NIV: Jesus



KJV removes God as “Holy One“, instead uses generic term “holy”

Proverbs 9:10 The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and knowledge of the Holy One is understanding. [NIV]

Proverbs 9:10 The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, And the knowledge of the Holy One is understanding. [NKJV]

Proverbs 9:10 The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding. [KJV]


KJV is soft on homosexuality, changes homosexual offenses to ambiguous "abusers of themselves with mankind".

1 Cor 6:9 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders. [NIV]

9Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind [KJV]



KJV denies Deity of Christ

Rom 9:5 Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen. [NIV]

Rom. 9:5 Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen. [KJV]


Phillipians 2:6 Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, [NIV]

Phillipians 2:6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: [KJV]


KJV revised itself, adds words

KJV 1611 edition, 1 John 5:12
He that hath the Son, hath life; and he that hath not the Son hath not life.

KJV, newer edition (adds words):
He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.



Titus 2:13

Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; [KJV]

while we wait for the blessed hope— the glorious appearing of our great God and Saviour, Jesus Christ, [NIV]

KJV: …glorious appearing of the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ…are they two different entities?


Your kingdom is an everlasting kingdom,
and your dominion endures through all generations.
The LORD is trustworthy in all he promises
and faithful in all he does.
Psalm 145:13 NIV

Thy kingdom is an everlasting kingdom,
and thy dominion endureth throughout all generations.
Psalm 145:13 KJV

KJV removes second half of the verse.

Good Post, Informative. I Achieve The Same Understanding From KJV And Prefer It, Therefore I Do Not Waste Time Comparing Translations Or Languages, And Applaud Those That Do It For Me, Like You.

It Affirms My Personal Interpretations And May Offer New Perspective To Some. I Notice NIV Stressing More, The Deity Of Jesus Christ, Among Other "Small" Differences. Rightly Dividing Is Not A Term That Simply 'Sounds Good", It's A Serious Problem For A Few Here.

I Asked A Spirit Filled Vibrant Man (Pastor) His Opinion On The Most Accurate Translation, I Was Surprised When He Said NIV. I Suppose The Conclusions We Come To, Reading The Word, Is The Important Part. MY, You Are A Good Debater.

SaulToPaul
March 13th, 2015, 10:04 AM
Then you will get no quarrell, from me.



Did you know that the modern English for "Slow down...what, indeed, is your hurry?" is "You betta slow your roll, playa."

Mocking You
March 13th, 2015, 10:04 AM
I'll leave you with this, its about a couple of wolves in sheep's clothing that were allowed to doctor the scriptures.

People are now saying that the Authorized King James Bible is wrong because they have believed the scholarship of these two blaspheming infidels. You will read their words for yourself in this article.

No one is saying the King James Bible is "wrong". Who is saying that?



Westcott and Hort's Greek New Testament is the "source text" for many of today's modern Bible translations. These men were hereticks.

These men were heretics, according to Gail Riplinger.


Again, Westcott and Hort's Greek New Testament is the "source text" for today's modern Bible versions. Let us examine what Westcott and Hort actually believed.

You mean let us examine what detractors say about Westcott and Hort's beliefs.

Anyway, going after Westcott and Hort is attacking the messenger, not the message.

chrysostom
March 13th, 2015, 10:18 AM
No one is saying the King James Bible is "wrong". Who is saying that?


parts of it are
and
it is not only me saying it

SaulToPaul
March 13th, 2015, 10:21 AM
parts of it are
and
it is not only me saying it

Does the cathecism contain any errors?

chrysostom
March 13th, 2015, 10:23 AM
Does the cathecism contain any errors?

yes but they are accepted in heaven

SaulToPaul
March 13th, 2015, 10:23 AM
yes but they are accepted in heaven

Do you have an example of an error in the cathecism?

chrysostom
March 13th, 2015, 10:25 AM
Do you have an example of an error in the cathecism?

the pope is infallible

everready
March 13th, 2015, 10:26 AM
Like i said wolves in sheep's clothing

The best way to discover the beliefs of the dead is to study their writings. Both Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort wrote extensively. Here are some of their beliefs, as revealed by their own writings:

Did not believe in the miracles of the Bible - Westcott in 1847: "1 never read an account of a miracle but I seem instinctively to feel its improbability and discover some want of evidence in the account of it."

Did not believe in the infallibility of the scriptures. - Westcott to Hort in 1860: "1 reject the word infallibility of Holy Scripture overwhelming." Hort to Lightfoot in 1860: "If you make a decided conviction of the absolute infallibility of the N. T., I fear I could not join you, even if you were willing to forget your fears about the origin of the Gospels."

Did not believe in the supernatural creation - Hort to Westcott in 1860: "... Have you read Darwin? How I should like to talk with you about it! In spite of difficulties, I am inclined to think it unanswerable. In any case, it is a treat to read such a book. " Hort to Ellerton in 1860 "But the book which has most engaged me is Darwin. Whatever may be thought of it, it is a book that one is proud to be contemporary with. I must work out and examine the argument more in detail, but at present my feeling is strong that the theory is unanswerable."

Did not believe in the efficacy (power) of the atonement - Hort: "The fact is, I do not see how God's justice can be satisfies without every man 's suffering in his own person the full penalty for his sins."

Westcott and Hort were clearly Anti-protestant (pro-Catholic sympathizers) Hort: "I think I mentioned to you before Campbell's book on the Atonement, which is invaluable as far as it goes; but unluckily he know nothing except Protestant theology."

Believed in the necessity of purgatory - Hort to Ellerton: "But the idea of purgation, of cleansing as by fire seems to me inseparable from what the Bible teaches us of the Divine chastisements..."

Believed in the communist system - Westcott: "I suppose I am a communist by nature." Hort: "I cannot say that I see much as yet to soften my deep hatred for democracy in all its forms." Hort: "I cannot at present see any objection to a limit being placed by the State upon the amount of property which any one person may possess ... I would say that the co-operative principle is a better and a mightier than the competitive principle."

Believed in prayers for the dead - Westcott: "We agreed unanimously that we are, as things are now, forbidden to pray for the dead apart from the whole church in our public services. No restriction is placed upon private devotions (to pray for the dead)."
The Roman Catholic system has greatly profited from the money paid for saying Mass for loved ones that have died.
Believed in the worship of Mary - Hort: "I am very far from pretending to understand completely the ever renewed vitality of Mariolatry. ...I have been persuaded for many years that Mary-worship and Jesus-worship' have very much in common in their causes and their results." (Westcott compelled his wife Sarah Louisa to take the name Mary in addition to her given name.)

Believed in the sacraments (sacrifices) Hort: "Still we dare not forsake the Sacraments, or God will forsake us."

Believed in baptismal regeneration - Westcott: "By birth he may, if he will, truly live here; by baptism he may if he will, truly live forever. ... I do think we have no right to exclaim against the idea of the commencement of a spiritual life, conditionally from Baptism, any more than we have to deny the commencement of a moral life from birth." Hort: "We maintain 'Baptismal Regeneration ' as the most important of doctrines ...the pure Romish view seems to me nearer, and more likely to lead to the truth than the Evangelical."

Acknowledged their heretical positions - Hort to Ellerton: "Possibly you have not heard that I have become Harold Browne's Examining Chaplain. I have only seen him two or three times in my life, not at all intimately, and was amazed when he made the proposal, in the kindest terms. I wrote to warn him that I was not safe or traditional in my theology, and that I could not give up association with heretics and such like. Westcott to Lightfoot: "It is strange, but all the questionable doctrines which I have ever maintained are in it (a particular book lacking the fundamentals)."

http://scatteredchristians.org/WescottHort.html

everready

SaulToPaul
March 13th, 2015, 10:26 AM
the pope is infallible

he isn't when he speaks ex cathedra?

Mocking You
March 13th, 2015, 10:35 AM
Like i said wolves in sheep's clothing

The best way to discover the beliefs of the dead is to study their writings. Both Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort wrote extensively. Here are some of their beliefs, as revealed by their own writings:

Even if this stuff is true, and I know some of it isn't, it doesn't mean they were lousy translators and didn't know their Greek.

If you want to play this game, look into Gail Riplinger's background, the champion of KJVO, and chief attack dog on Westcott and Hort.

everready
March 13th, 2015, 11:55 AM
i don't see this as a game, maybe to Westcott & Hort it was a game.

Westcott & Hort

Did not believe in a literal heaven.
Did not believe in the literal second coming of the Lord Jesus Christ
Did not believe in the Lord Jesus Christ's literal 1,000-year reign on earth.
Did not believe in the reality of angels.
Denied the Trinity's oneness.
Doubted the soul's existence apart from the body.
Did not believe in a literal Devil.

It is hard to imagine, after reading what these two men believed, how any Christian that espouses the fundamentals of the faith could align himself with the likes of these two characters. However, every person choosing a modern version over the King James Bible does just that. He aligns himself with two men who despised the very things that mos Christians hold sacred. Their influence can be seen directly in the revision of 1881 and indirectly in every modern version since that time.

The King James Bible New Testament comes from the Majority Text (that is, from those manuscripts that agree with each other and are most prevalent.) Unlike the translators of 1611, Westcott and Hort rejected the Majority Text and relied heavily on the Alexandrian manuscripts which included the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts. These two men regarded the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus as authoritative, yet these two manuscripts disagree with each other over 3,000 times in the Gospels alone. These two manuscripts have greatly influenced every modern version on the market today and form the basis for 99% of them.

http://scatteredchristians.org/WescottHort.html


everready

kiwimacahau
March 13th, 2015, 11:55 AM
I'll leave you with this, its about a couple of wolves in sheep's clothing that were allowed to doctor the scriptures.

People are now saying that the Authorized King James Bible is wrong because they have believed the scholarship of these two blaspheming infidels. You will read their words for yourself in this article.

Westcott and Hort's Greek New Testament is the "source text" for many of today's modern Bible translations. These men were hereticks. [The personal letters of Hort and Westcott sound like the letters of men of the Jesuit order (that is, if you know the Roman Catholic Jesuits. If you are a Christian, I highly suggest that you read the The Deception Series. Not only will you know more about the Jesuits and their activities, you will become more acquainted with yourself, the problems with the visible church, Revelation 17, and these end times.)

Again, Westcott and Hort's Greek New Testament is the "source text" for today's modern Bible versions. Let us examine what Westcott and Hort actually believed.

http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/hort.htm

everready

Humbug! Westcott and Hort were ordained ministers of God. David Stewart is simply regurgitating the same old lies that all KJV-Onlyists spout and the Westcott-Hort Text is NOT the source for all modern versions; we have moved on, unlike some, since the 1850s.

kiwimacahau
March 13th, 2015, 11:57 AM
Like i said wolves in sheep's clothing

The best way to discover the beliefs of the dead is to study their writings. Both Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort wrote extensively. Here are some of their beliefs, as revealed by their own writings:

Did not believe in the miracles of the Bible - Westcott in 1847: "1 never read an account of a miracle but I seem instinctively to feel its improbability and discover some want of evidence in the account of it."

Did not believe in the infallibility of the scriptures. - Westcott to Hort in 1860: "1 reject the word infallibility of Holy Scripture overwhelming." Hort to Lightfoot in 1860: "If you make a decided conviction of the absolute infallibility of the N. T., I fear I could not join you, even if you were willing to forget your fears about the origin of the Gospels."

Did not believe in the supernatural creation - Hort to Westcott in 1860: "... Have you read Darwin? How I should like to talk with you about it! In spite of difficulties, I am inclined to think it unanswerable. In any case, it is a treat to read such a book. " Hort to Ellerton in 1860 "But the book which has most engaged me is Darwin. Whatever may be thought of it, it is a book that one is proud to be contemporary with. I must work out and examine the argument more in detail, but at present my feeling is strong that the theory is unanswerable."

Did not believe in the efficacy (power) of the atonement - Hort: "The fact is, I do not see how God's justice can be satisfies without every man 's suffering in his own person the full penalty for his sins."

Westcott and Hort were clearly Anti-protestant (pro-Catholic sympathizers) Hort: "I think I mentioned to you before Campbell's book on the Atonement, which is invaluable as far as it goes; but unluckily he know nothing except Protestant theology."

Believed in the necessity of purgatory - Hort to Ellerton: "But the idea of purgation, of cleansing as by fire seems to me inseparable from what the Bible teaches us of the Divine chastisements..."

Believed in the communist system - Westcott: "I suppose I am a communist by nature." Hort: "I cannot say that I see much as yet to soften my deep hatred for democracy in all its forms." Hort: "I cannot at present see any objection to a limit being placed by the State upon the amount of property which any one person may possess ... I would say that the co-operative principle is a better and a mightier than the competitive principle."

Believed in prayers for the dead - Westcott: "We agreed unanimously that we are, as things are now, forbidden to pray for the dead apart from the whole church in our public services. No restriction is placed upon private devotions (to pray for the dead)."
The Roman Catholic system has greatly profited from the money paid for saying Mass for loved ones that have died.
Believed in the worship of Mary - Hort: "I am very far from pretending to understand completely the ever renewed vitality of Mariolatry. ...I have been persuaded for many years that Mary-worship and Jesus-worship' have very much in common in their causes and their results." (Westcott compelled his wife Sarah Louisa to take the name Mary in addition to her given name.)

Believed in the sacraments (sacrifices) Hort: "Still we dare not forsake the Sacraments, or God will forsake us."

Believed in baptismal regeneration - Westcott: "By birth he may, if he will, truly live here; by baptism he may if he will, truly live forever. ... I do think we have no right to exclaim against the idea of the commencement of a spiritual life, conditionally from Baptism, any more than we have to deny the commencement of a moral life from birth." Hort: "We maintain 'Baptismal Regeneration ' as the most important of doctrines ...the pure Romish view seems to me nearer, and more likely to lead to the truth than the Evangelical."

Acknowledged their heretical positions - Hort to Ellerton: "Possibly you have not heard that I have become Harold Browne's Examining Chaplain. I have only seen him two or three times in my life, not at all intimately, and was amazed when he made the proposal, in the kindest terms. I wrote to warn him that I was not safe or traditional in my theology, and that I could not give up association with heretics and such like. Westcott to Lightfoot: "It is strange, but all the questionable doctrines which I have ever maintained are in it (a particular book lacking the fundamentals)."

http://scatteredchristians.org/WescottHort.html

everready

Every single one of these is taken out of context and deliberately, in some cases, manipulated to make Westcott & Hort seem to say something that they were not.

kiwimacahau
March 13th, 2015, 11:58 AM
i don't see this as a game, maybe to Westcott & Hort it was a game.

Westcott & Hort

Did not believe in a literal heaven.
Did not believe in the literal second coming of the Lord Jesus Christ
Did not believe in the Lord Jesus Christ's literal 1,000-year reign on earth.
Did not believe in the reality of angels.
Denied the Trinity's oneness.
Doubted the soul's existence apart from the body.
Did not believe in a literal Devil.

It is hard to imagine, after reading what these two men believed, how any Christian that espouses the fundamentals of the faith could align himself with the likes of these two characters. However, every person choosing a modern version over the King James Bible does just that. He aligns himself with two men who despised the very things that mos Christians hold sacred. Their influence can be seen directly in the revision of 1881 and indirectly in every modern version since that time.

The King James Bible New Testament comes from the Majority Text (that is, from those manuscripts that agree with each other and are most prevalent.) Unlike the translators of 1611, Westcott and Hort rejected the Majority Text and relied heavily on the Alexandrian manuscripts which included the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts. These two men regarded the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus as authoritative, yet these two manuscripts disagree with each other over 3,000 times in the Gospels alone. These two manuscripts have greatly influenced every modern version on the market today and form the basis for 99% of them.

http://scatteredchristians.org/WescottHort.html


everready

Heiferdust!

everready
March 13th, 2015, 11:59 AM
Humbug! Westcott and Hort were ordained ministers of God. David Stewart is simply regurgitating the same old lies that all KJV-Onlyists spout and the Westcott-Hort Text is NOT the source for all modern versions; we have moved on, unlike some, since the 1850s.

Ordained by whom?

everready

kiwimacahau
March 13th, 2015, 12:06 PM
The Anglican Church.

Mocking You
March 13th, 2015, 12:07 PM
It is hard to imagine, after reading what these two men believed, how any Christian that espouses the fundamentals of the faith could align himself with the likes of these two characters. However, every person choosing a modern version over the King James Bible does just that. He aligns himself with two men who despised the very things that mos Christians hold sacred.

What do you do about King James' homosexuality? Look the other way? The man that commissioned the King James Bible was gay.

Mocking You
March 13th, 2015, 12:08 PM
Every single one of these is taken out of context and deliberately, in some cases, manipulated to make Westcott & Hort seem to say something that they were not.

I recognize a lot of them are taken out of context. Just waiting for the "Westcott and Hort were spiritualists that held seances" charge to come up.

kiwimacahau
March 13th, 2015, 12:09 PM
Right, I'm off. My local community show day, but I will be back, God Willing.

kiwimacahau
March 13th, 2015, 12:10 PM
I recognize a lot of them are taken out of context. Just waiting for the "Westcott and Hort were spiritualists that held seances" charge to come up.

It is, unfortunately, inevitable.

everready
March 13th, 2015, 12:26 PM
Sounds like the both of you are Jesuit trained.

everready

Mocking You
March 13th, 2015, 12:32 PM
Sounds like the both of you are Jesuit trained.

everready

I'm not. I went to an IFB KJVO Baptist church in my youth. Believe me, I've heard all the arguments about the King James Bible being the only accurate and true Bible translated into English, how the Critical Text is "corrupt", how Westcott and Hort were heretics, etc. etc. I would use these arguments until I did the research and found them mistaken and unreliable, sometimes downright lies.

I now prefer the NIV (the Not Inspired Version, as they used to call it at my old church.)

So, what do you do about King James' homosexuality?

What about the obfuscation of homosexuality in the KJV at 1 Cor. 6:9?

chrysostom
March 13th, 2015, 12:55 PM
he isn't when he speaks ex cathedra?

not necessarily

john w
March 13th, 2015, 01:13 PM
Ah, KJV-onlyism; a heresy which equates what bible you use with whether or not you are an heir to salvation. You attack translators, you attack those who use other bibles. You ignore what I have said and prefer your own interpretation of my words. You are a dog in the manger, you will not yourself eat and you prevent others from eating as well.




For the THIRD TIME, every English translation by reputable scholars is the Word of God. How much clearer do I need to be?

Your "Errors Only-ism," "Any Version/Translation will do Only-ism," "All Versions Only-ism" is heresy.

So there.

john w
March 13th, 2015, 01:15 PM
What do you do about King James' homosexuality? Look the other way? The man that commissioned the King James Bible was gay.

And Moses struck the rock twice. You have a point? How do you know, that the scribes weren't living in San Fran, or were not lushes/drunks?

Nazaroo
March 13th, 2015, 01:18 PM
Humbug! Westcott and Hort were ordained ministers of God. David Stewart is simply regurgitating the same old lies that all KJV-Onlyists spout and the Westcott-Hort Text is NOT the source for all modern versions; we have moved on, unlike some, since the 1850s.

Who 'ordained' them? Other homosexual faggots from Oxford and Cambridge.

The Anglican Church was completely taken over by Jesuits and homos almost 50 years before Hort and Westcott.

The last honest (non homosexual) Anglican ministers were probably Scrivener and Dean Burgon,
and they were hounded out and/or politely ignored throughout their distinguished scholarly careers.

The first thing the new breed did once the last real Christians in the CofE died,
was to legalize sodomy.

Hort? Romanist infiltrator.

Westcott? Foolish homosexual.

Ordained ministers? Yes: by Satan.




For the THIRD TIME, every English translation by reputable scholars is the Word of God. How much clearer do I need to be?Do you mean scholars like the closet Lesbian who wrote the introduction to the NIV?


In their own words:


"[Virginia Mollenkott writes] 'I worked on the NIV during the entire time it was being translated and reviewed, although I was never free to attend the summer sessions even when I was invited to do so. Elisabeth Elliot and I were the Stylistic Consultants: our job was simply to make sure the translation would communicate clearly to modern American readers, and that the style was as smooth and understandable as possible. I was never removed, sacked, or made redundant from my work on the NIV; if I were, my name would not have appeared on the list sent out by the IBS. It was Dr. Edwin Palmer, who lived near my college, who invited me to work on the NIV. He had heard me speak and respected my integrity and my knowledge. So far as I know, nobody including Dr. Palmer suspected that I was lesbian while I was working on the NIV; it was information I kept private at that time. '

http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/woudstra.htm


The "as far as I know" escape-clause is laughable.

Everybody knows she and her friends were chosen because they were homosexuals.

everready
March 13th, 2015, 01:20 PM
I'm not. I went to an IFB KJVO Baptist church in my youth. Believe me, I've heard all the arguments about the King James Bible being the only accurate and true Bible translated into English, how the Critical Text is "corrupt", how Westcott and Hort were heretics, etc. etc. I would use these arguments until I did the research and found them mistaken and unreliable, sometimes downright lies.

I now prefer the NIV (the Not Inspired Version, as they used to call it at my old church.)

So, what do you do about King James' homosexuality?

What about the obfuscation of homosexuality in the KJV at 1 Cor. 6:9?

Same thing i do with Paul the Apostle, he was a murder, there are others but you already knew that so why the accusation of King James?

everready

Ask Mr. Religion
March 13th, 2015, 02:50 PM
In any event, I have enjoyed reading your post in this thread.

Kind words, thank you.

I can only point you to the Larger Catechism, answer 157, "The holy scriptures are to be read with an high and reverent esteem of them; with a firm persuasion that they are the very word of God." If one cannot approach their translation with this conviction, then their view of the English translation is obviously at odds with the confessional view.

The problem with the modern conception is that the translation is not truly recognized as the Word of God. Traditional Presbyterians used to distinguish between the words and the sense of Scripture: the words in the original alone are inspired, but the inspiration is carried over into the sense as it is accurately conveyed in the translation. If this were truly believed, there would not be such haste to alter the Word of God.

Those who have not studied the history of translations probably are not aware of this, but the Reformers and Puritans had good cause to reject certain works which called themselves the Word of God. In the reformed period, Castellio; and in the Puritan period, the Rheims. Perhaps more astonishing is the fact that these rejected translations have borne an influence on modern versions which "reformed" people so readily accept. One example which readily comes to mind is to be found in John Knox's work on Predestination, where he rejects the Anabaptist's Pelagian rendering of Gen. 4:7; that rendering is now to be found in EVERY modern version.

I believe there should be one official Bible in the reformed church. The fact is, that the AV held that place among English speaking people for centuries, while no modern version has reached the same status. Without an official Bible, the church effectively says, we do not know where the Word of God is to be found in the English language.

I concede that there are renderings in the AV which can be improved, and I can envisage a day when the English speaking churches will recover their visible unity and the task of faithful "revision" can commence again. Until that time, we should bear with the occasional "archaism" in the AV. If the NT could borrow words from the dated vocabulary of the Greek version of the OT, then I see nothing wrong with bearing with a few antiquated expressions for the sake of adhering to the most faithful rendering of the inspired Scriptures.

When the dogmaticians refer to the "original texts" they nearly always have as their referent the extant apographa or "original language texts, as opposed to original autographic texts." The confusion was never in their minds, only in a modern reading them through the lens of twentieth century categories and debates.

Robinson does eventually get it right by acknowledging:

“Reformed theologians were not arguing for the obvious authenticity of the no longer extant autographs. Instead they were claiming authenticity for the received texts which they viewed as equivalent to the original manuscripts, and which they referred to as the "authentic sources," the "first editions," the "Greek and Hebrew originals," the "original texts," etc. The authenticity of Greek and Hebrew "sources" was held to be absolute both in form and content.... In summary, the Reformed theologians held that only the received Hebrew text of the Old Testament and the Greek text of the New Testament were authentic, authoritative editions of the Scripture.”

The modern fundamentalist adjustment now claims that only the original autographs are authoritative, once they have been reconstructed. Muller has commented on this:

"It is important to note that the Reformed orthodox insistence on the identification of the Hebrew and Greek texts as alone authentic does not demand direct reference to autographa in those languages; the 'original and authentic text' of Scripture means, beyond the autograph copies, the legitimate tradition of Hebrew and Greek apographa. The case for Scripture as an infallible rule of faith and practice and the separate arguments for a received text free from major (i.e., non-scribal) errors rests on an examination of apographa and does not seek the infinite regress of lost autographa as a prop for textual infallibility" (Muller 1993: 433, as quoted in Letis' dissertation).


Modern Denial of Preservation
By: Lawrence E. Bray

The doctrine of preservation is a foundational teaching of the Protestant Church. Most conservative Christians are in agreement that the original manuscripts of Scripture are inspired. But as we do not possess these originals the doctrine of the preservation of those originals is of utmost importance. What this doctrine states is that while the Bible was immediately inspired in the originals, it was also kept pure throughout the ages. The purity of preservation is no less than the purity of inspiration as it is the work of God Himself. Yet sadly today the conservative Christian Church is teaching something quite different. They no longer believe in the doctrine of preservation, though some do claim a belief in it. There are pockets of Christianity that still hold to this doctrine, being unshaken by the postmodernism that has infected the Church at large. Some of the organizations that represent this remnant of historic Christian belief in preservation are the Trinitarian Bible Society, the James Begg Society, and the Dean Burgon Society.

To better see the distinction between historic Christianity and postmodern Christianity we will look at two confessions that deal with the preservation of Scripture – The Westminster Confession of Faith, and the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. The Westminster Confession of Faith (chapter 1, section 8) says this:

The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as in all controversies of religion the Church is finally to appeal unto them. But because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God who have right unto, and interest in, the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them, therefore they are to be translated into the language of every people unto which they come, that the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship him in an acceptable manner, and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope.

We can see that the accepted doctrine of the Protestant Church was that God kept His Scripture pure in all ages. That is how preservation was defined. Now before we go much further, let’s look at what the word “pure” means. To be pure is to be complete, without fault, free of foreign elements.1 This gives us an excellent idea of what the Westminster Divines were telling us in this passage of the Confession.

They believed that the Scriptures in their original languages were pure and perfect in the apographs (copies), not solely in the autographs.

Now let’s see what a modern confession has to say about the purity and preservation of Scripture. The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (article X) says this:

We affirm that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture, which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy. We further affirm that copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original.
We deny that any essential element of the Christian faith is affected by the absence of the autographs. We further deny that this absence renders the assertion of Biblical inerrancy invalid or irrelevant.

This clearly shows us that modern Christian teaching promulgates the idea that we can have Scripture with “great accuracy,” but not pure. How great is the accuracy? I’ve heard scholars suggest numbers from 98% to over 99% (Bruce Metzger et al), but never 100%. The statement of faith also shows that they look on the apographs as being the Word of God only to the extent that they represent the original. This is an interesting statement, as the originals do not exist.

Logically speaking, since we do not have the originals this statement of faith confirms a belief that they do not know to what extent the Scriptures that we have are the Word of God since it is impossible for them to see how closely they represent the original.

There is another interesting statement in the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy that seems to contradict modern textual criticism. Article XIV says:

We affirm the unity and internal consistency of Scripture.
We deny that alleged errors and discrepancies that have not yet been resolved violate the truth claims of the Bible.

While they say that they believe in the internal consistency of Scripture, let’s see what their modern textual criticism teaches us…

The basic criteria for internally assessing variant readings is as follows 2:
1. The more difficult the reading the better.
2. The shorter the reading the better.
3. The reading that is in verbal dissidence with other readings is better.
4. The less refined and more rough reading is to be preferred.
The modern textual critic believes that the reading in dissidence with other readings is better! That’s hardly a case for internal consistency.
We also see the doctrine of preservation vanishing among Bible translators and Greek Text editors. I will look at two popular conservative translations as well as the critical Greek Text put out by the United Bible Society.

2 Chr 31:16 (NASB)
without regard to their genealogical enrollment, to the males from thirty years old and upward--everyone who entered the house of the LORD for his daily obligations--for their work in their duties according to their divisions;

All ancient manuscripts contain "3 years old" and not the 30 that we see in the NASB. This shows that the translators feel a need to correct the Scriptures. This need to correct clearly goes against any honest teaching on preservation.

1 Sam 13:1 (ESV)
Saul was... years old when he began to reign, and he reigned... and two years over Israel.

Here the ESV translators show that there is missing text in the Scriptures. Clearly you cannot show that there is missing text and still believe the text has been preserved. Remember that the definition of pure includes completeness. Besides, this would sound very strange if read in public.

The editors of the UBS critical Greek text also have a different idea of preservation. The UBS critical Greek text at Acts 16:12 uses "prwthS" - which is found in no manuscript. The reading should be "prwth" without the "S." The "S" makes the noun genitive, which changes the meaning. Instead of reading that Philippi is a foremost city of Macedonia, it reads that Philippi is a city of the first district of Macedonia. They do this because they do not think the text has been preserved, but rather it needs correcting.

I strongly urge Christians to consider where a denial of the preservation of Scripture will lead the Church. Without preservation there is no purity. Without purity the text can be questioned. When the text can be questioned we have no final authority. The early Protestant Church understood the importance of this doctrine. We should seek to embrace it again as something that is dearly beloved to us.


[1] – “The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language”, Fourth Edition, Houghton Mifflin Company, 2000.
[2] – Bruce M. Metzger, “The Text of the New Testament – It’s Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration”, Third Edition, Oxford University Press, Inc., 1992, p 209.


AMR

Mocking You
March 13th, 2015, 03:03 PM
And Moses struck the rock twice. You have a point?

Yes, my point is that since King James was gay, you get a lousy translation of 1 Cor. 6:9. Instead of it clearly condemning homosexuality you get a convoluted phrase "abusers of themselves with mankind".


How do you know, that the scribes weren't living in San Fran, or were not lushes/drunks?

non sequitur

everready
March 13th, 2015, 03:28 PM
Yes, my point is that since King James was gay, you get a lousy translation of 1 Cor. 6:9. Instead of it clearly condemning homosexuality you get a convoluted phrase "abusers of themselves with mankind".



non sequitur

That's slander Mocking You.

QUESTION: I have been told that King James was a homosexual. Is this true?

ANSWER: No.

EXPLANATION: King James I of England, who authorized the translation of the now famous King James Bible, was considered by many to be one of the greatest, if not the greatest, monarchs that England has ever seen.
Through his wisdom and determination he united the warring tribes of Scotland into a unified nation, and then joined England and Scotland to form the foundation for what is now known as the British Empire.

At a time when only the churches of England possessed the Bible in English, King James' desire was that the common people should have the Bible in their native tongue. Thus, in 1603, King James called 54 of history's most learned men together to accomplish this great task. At a time when the leaders of the world wished to keep their subjects in spiritual ignorance, King James offered his subjects the greatest gift that he could give them. Their own copy of the Word of God in English.

James, who was fluent in Latin, Greek, and French, and schooled in Italian and Spanish even wrote a tract entitled "Counterblast to Tobacco",which was written to help thwart the use of tobacco in England.

Such a man was sure to have enemies. One such man, Anthony Weldon, had to be excluded from the court. Weldon swore vengeance. It was not until 1650, twenty-five years after the death of James that Weldon saw his chance. He wrote a paper calling James a homosexual. Obviously, James, being dead, was in no condition to defend himself.

The report was largely ignored since there were still enough people alive who knew it wasn't true. In fact, it lay dormant for years, until recently when it was picked up by Christians who hoped that vilifying King James, would tarnish the Bible that bears his name so that Christians would turn away from God's book to a more "modern" translation.

It seems though, that Weldon's false account is being once again largely ignored by the majority of Christianity with the exception of those with an ulterior motive, such as its author had.
It might also be mentioned here that the Roman Catholic Church was so desperate to keep the true Bible out of the hands of the English people that it attempted to kill King James and all of Parliament in 1605.

In 1605 a Roman Catholic by the name of Guy Fawkes, under the direction of a Jesuit priest by the name of Henry Garnet, was found in the basement of Parliament with thirty-six barrels of gunpowder which he was to use to blow up King James and the entire Parliament. After killing the king, they planned on imprisoning his children, re-establishing England as a state loyal to the Pope and kill all who resisted. Needless to say, the perfect English Bible would have been one of the plot's victims. Fawkes and Garnet and eight other conspirators were caught and hanged.
It seems that those who work so hard to discredit the character of King James join an unholy lot.

http://www.chick.com/reading/books/158/158_03.asp?FROM=biblecenter

everready

Mocking You
March 13th, 2015, 03:52 PM
That's slander Mocking You.

QUESTION: I have been told that King James was a homosexual. Is this true?

ANSWER: No.

EXPLANATION: King James I of England, who authorized the translation of the now famous King James Bible, was considered by many to be one of the greatest, if not the greatest, monarchs that England has ever seen.

<snip>

http://www.chick.com/reading/books/158/158_03.asp?FROM=biblecenter

everready

Jack Chick tract website? Really? The people that put out comic book tracts? That's your scholarly source for King James not being gay?

It so happens there are a series of seventy-five letters that King James wrote to his gay lovers that are in the British Library system. These letters are quite graphic and leave no doubt that King James was a homosexual. His first affair was when he was 13 years old and his lover was a 37 year old, Esme Stuart.

All the lurid details are in a book written by an English professor: "King James and Letters of Homoerotic Desire" by David M. Bergeron

Links:
http://www.amazon.com/King-James-Letters-Homoerotic-Desire/dp/0877456690/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1426282979&sr=1-2

https://books.google.com/books?ei=YlsDVdHOMYyrNraIgKgI&id=0VZnAAAAMAAJ&dq=King+James+and+Letters+of+Homoerotic+Desire&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=Esme+Stuart

everready
March 13th, 2015, 04:02 PM
Jack Chick tract website? Really? The people that put out comic book tracts? That's your scholarly source for King James not being gay?

It so happens there are a series of seventy-five letters that King James wrote to his gay lovers that are in the British Library system. These letters are quite graphic and leave no doubt that King James was a homosexual. His first affair was when he was 13 years old and his lover was a 37 year old, Esme Stuart.

All the lurid details are in a book written by an English professor: "King James and Letters of Homoerotic Desire" by David M. Bergeron

Links:
http://www.amazon.com/King-James-Letters-Homoerotic-Desire/dp/0877456690/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1426282979&sr=1-2

https://books.google.com/books?ei=YlsDVdHOMYyrNraIgKgI&id=0VZnAAAAMAAJ&dq=King+James+and+Letters+of+Homoerotic+Desire&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=Esme+Stuart

Is David Bergeron Jesuit trained?

everready

john w
March 13th, 2015, 04:05 PM
Yes, my point is that since King James was gay, you get a lousy translation of 1 Cor. 6:9. Instead of it clearly condemning homosexuality you get a convoluted phrase "abusers of themselves with mankind".



non sequitur

It's irrelevant. Moses struck the rock twice.

What are your qualifications? Had any bad thoughts today? Save it-it's a rhetorical q.

Show us what the criteria is, for avoiding " a lousy translation."


Save it-it's a rhetorical request.


How do you know, that the scribes weren't living in San Fran, or were not lushes/drunks?

Since they were, you get a lousy translation/copying-errors.


See how that works, engager in sophistry, and humanism?

kiwimacahau
March 13th, 2015, 06:25 PM
Sounds like the both of you are Jesuit trained.

everready

So because w disagree and can back it up with facts we are Jesuits? Doesn't take a lot to be one in your world does it?

Mocking You
March 13th, 2015, 06:28 PM
Is David Bergeron Jesuit trained?

everready

I doubt it. He's a professor at the University of Kansas.

The 70+ letters that King James wrote to his lovers can be seen in British museums. They are a matter of public record. The fanciful story from the Jack Chick comic book store you cited of vengeful detractors making up stories about King James --irrelevant and fabrications.

kiwimacahau
March 13th, 2015, 06:30 PM
Who 'ordained' them? Other homosexual faggots from Oxford and Cambridge.

The Anglican Church was completely taken over by Jesuits and homos almost 50 years before Hort and Westcott.

The last honest (non homosexual) Anglican ministers were probably Scrivener and Dean Burgon,
and they were hounded out and/or politely ignored throughout their distinguished scholarly careers.

The first thing the new breed did once the last real Christians in the CofE died,
was to legalize sodomy.

Hort? Romanist infiltrator.

Westcott? Foolish homosexual.

Ordained ministers? Yes: by Satan.

Do you mean scholars like the closet Lesbian who wrote the introduction to the NIV?


In their own words:


"[Virginia Mollenkott writes] 'I worked on the NIV during the entire time it was being translated and reviewed, although I was never free to attend the summer sessions even when I was invited to do so. Elisabeth Elliot and I were the Stylistic Consultants: our job was simply to make sure the translation would communicate clearly to modern American readers, and that the style was as smooth and understandable as possible. I was never removed, sacked, or made redundant from my work on the NIV; if I were, my name would not have appeared on the list sent out by the IBS. It was Dr. Edwin Palmer, who lived near my college, who invited me to work on the NIV. He had heard me speak and respected my integrity and my knowledge. So far as I know, nobody including Dr. Palmer suspected that I was lesbian while I was working on the NIV; it was information I kept private at that time. '

http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/woudstra.htm


The "as far as I know" escape-clause is laughable.

Everybody knows she and her friends were chosen because they were homosexuals.


You are a liar. Plain and simple. You lie about Westcott and Hort and about the Anglican Church. There is no honesty in you.

Nazaroo
March 13th, 2015, 06:45 PM
You are a liar. Plain and simple. You lie about Westcott and Hort and about the Anglican Church. There is no honesty in you.

The Anglican Church is going straight to hell.

I don't want you to miss this message.

They abandoned the Gospel of Christ over 140 years ago,
when they began mutilating the Holy Scriptures
at the suggestion of heretical homosexuals bought off by the Vatican.

Because you defend these heretical perverts,
and even the Anglican Church too,
there is no honesty in YOU.

God abandoned the Anglican Church when
they removed the Common Book of Prayer, and the 39 Articles of Faith,
and the King James Bible from the pews,
thus sealing their destruction.

Good riddance.

Repent and believe the Gospel of Jesus the Christ.
God is even now preparing the Lake of Fire for all of you homosexual evil-doers,
and corrupters and perverters of the Holy Scriptures of the Living God of Israel, Creator of Heavens and Earth.

Jesus is coming in the Clouds to destroy you.

Beg the mountains to fall on you and hide you.

Repent and believe the Gospel,

or have your name struck out of the Book of Life
for striking out the words of God from copies of the Holy Scriptures.

God is even now raising up Muslim armies to serve the Beast
and the False Prophet Mohammed, and the Lying Spirit of Satan,
to call all unbelievers to the field of Ar Maggedo.

I'll be watching from the clouds as God destroys you once and for all time.

Repent while you still have a few precious moments left.

kayaker
March 13th, 2015, 06:57 PM
I doubt it. He's a professor at the University of Kansas.

The 70+ letters that King James wrote to his lovers can be seen in British museums. They are a matter of public record. The fanciful story from the Jack Chick comic book store you cited of vengeful detractors making up stories about King James --irrelevant and fabrications.

I appreciate the direction of your claim that 1Corinthians 6:9 did not fully illuminate ‘homosexuality’ being King James was gay. It is interesting this topic was similarly mentioned in the OT in Leviticus 18:22 KJV, and Leviticus 20:13 KJV. Had King James at age 13 today been a student in local middle school and had sexual relations with a 37 y/o teacher, I seriously doubt King James would have been charged with molestation, although it’s doubtful King James’ behavior would have been any different later in is life. The point of 1Corinthians 6:9 seems abundantly clear. Do you propose King James’ sexual persuasion influenced any other aspect of the KJV translation?

Let’s take another look how translation impacts discernment of improper sexual relations.

Genesis 9:22 NIV Ham, the father of Canaan, saw his father naked and told his two brothers outside.

Was Ham a gay voyeur?

Genesis 9:22 KJV And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without.

“Nakedness of his father” has significant meaning in the KJV illuminating Ham’s deed not discerned in the NIV.

Genesis 9:22 KJV correlates well enough with Leviticus 18:8 KJV, Leviticus 20:11 KJV, Deuteronomy 22:30 KJV, and Deuteronomy 27:20 KJV. These related verses clearly illuminate the truth, in my mind at least, to the specific nature of Ham’s deed in the KJV. This correlation cannot be discerned in the NIV from Genesis 9:22 NIV. Therefore, the curse of Canaan being the progeny of son-mother incest, contrary to Mosaic Law, fades even further into the translational abyss.

If I may be so bold, all translations that similarly dilute Ham’s deed, as the NIV in this case are insufficient for discerning the truth regards the event in Noah’s tent. Translations similar to Genesis 9:22 NIV translational dilution include the NLT, Holman Christian Bible, Standard Bible, ISV, NET Bible, GOD’S WORD Trans., Douay-Rheims Bible, USCCB Catholic Bible. Those translations, which maintain the KJV discernment, include the ESV, NASB, KJB, Jubilee Bible 2000, KJ 2000 Bible, AKJV, Darby Bible, ERV, Webster’s Bible Trans., Word English Bible, and Youngs Literal Trans.

The event in Noah’s tent is no small OT matter in my fallible theology. But, I don’t perceive significant translational dilution in 1Corinthians 6:9 in any translation, respectfully. All translations depict homosexuality regardless of the use of the word. The truth that homosexuality is incongruent with Mosaic Law is quite clear; I hear no dilution of the truth. In the case of Genesis 9:22 NIV, truth is entirely misdirected. I prefer the KJV.

kayaker

kiwimacahau
March 13th, 2015, 07:00 PM
You are a liar. THe Anglican church has never removed the BCP or the 39 Articles ; Westcott and Hort were not homosexuals and were certainly not any form of Catholic. The KJV is an inferior translation. Further, you would not know the truth if it bit you upon the sit-upon.

Nazaroo
March 13th, 2015, 07:02 PM
You are a liar. THe Anglican church has never removed the BCP or the 39 Articles ; Westcott and Hort were not homosexuals and were certainly not any form of Catholic. The KJV is an inferior translation. Further, you would not know the truth if it bit you upon the sit-upon.

Whatever comes to pass,
THAT is what the LORD has spoken.

The LORD will defend me.
I will wait upon Him.

The Living God, the LORD God of Israel, Creator of Heavens and Earth
is able to save, and able to defend His own Holy Scriptures.

Regarding all the "beautiful cathedrals and churches",
even as in the time of King Herod, many gazed and admired the work.
But Jesus said, "Not one stone shall be left one on top of another."

So as it was in the days when the FURY of God struck down the Temple of Jerusalem,
so it will be in these days when the FURY of the LORD again destroys
all the Church of England's buildings, empty of loyalty but full of ill-gotten wealth.

Dialogos
March 13th, 2015, 07:19 PM
i don't see this as a game, maybe to Westcott & Hort it was a game.

Westcott & Hort

Did not believe in a literal heaven.
Did not believe in the literal second coming of the Lord Jesus Christ
Did not believe in the Lord Jesus Christ's literal 1,000-year reign on earth.
Did not believe in the reality of angels.
Denied the Trinity's oneness.
Doubted the soul's existence apart from the body.
Did not believe in a literal Devil.

First of all. Wescott and Hort have been besmerched in KJV only circles for a good long time now and it is coming to light that many of the quotations that are used to sling mud at them are dishonestly handled.

For example:

Both Chick and Ripplinger shamefully misquote Wescott. Here is one shameful example.



False claim #1: "Writing that his father had a lifelong "faith in what for lack of a better name, one must call Spiritualism," the son of famed biblical Greek text editor B. F. Westcott admits to considerable public alarm at his father's activity." (Jack Chick, Battle Cry, July/August 1993 issue)

This combination of claim and quote comes from the July/August 1993 issue of "Battle Cry", the newspaper put out by Jack Chick. The quote above still appears on Chick's website at the time of this writing. Similarly, Gail Riplinger writes "Westcott's son writes of his father's lifelong "faith in what for lack of a better name, one must call Spiritualism. . ." " (Riplinger, New Age Bible Versions, p.407). The context is from where Westcott's son discusses Westcott's short-lived involvement in the "Ghostlie Guild" when he was a young man still in university (see James May's article and Robert L. Sumner's article for more information), and the entire paragraph the quote is lifted from is as follows (bold added):

"What happened to this Guild in the end I have not discovered. My father ceased to interest himself in these matters, not altogether, I believe, from want of faith in what, for lack of a better name, one must call Spiritualism, but because he was seriously convinced that such investigations led to no good." (Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott, Vol. I, p.119)
There are several problems with the claim as made by Chick and Riplinger. First, and most importantly, notice that the quote had "want of" (lack of, e.g. Psalm 23:1) chopped off the front.. Westcott did not have "faith" in Spiritualism, he had "want of [(lack of)] faith" in Spiritualism. Secondly, it was one of two reasons he ceased to interest himself in the the matters the Guild was involved in, shortly after it was formed (notice Chick and Riplinger both falsely use the word "lifelong"). Thirdly, nothing in the quote (or surrounding material) even hints at "public alarm", let alone "considerable" or even Westcott's son admitting such. Chick's claim is completely fabricated, and the quote he chopped to support his claim actually says the exact opposite when the context is examined. The entire quote is somewhat difficult to parse as it stands, but it's easier to breakdown if viewed as follows: "Westcott ceased, not altogether (not entirely) from want (lack) of faith in Spiritualism, but also because such investigations led to no good." Was the reason that Westcott ceased due to want (lack) of faith in Spiritualism? Yes, but it was "not altogether" the reason - it was also because "he was seriously convinced that such investigations led to no good".

(Source:http://www.westcotthort.com/quotes_newage.html)

:nono:

Shameful.

Both Jack Chick and Gail Riplinger need to repent of their dishonest use of sources.

I am fine with the lives of these two men being put up to scrutiny just so long as the criticisms are honest.

The problem is that Chick and Riplinger have been quoted and re-quoted so many times that people don't even know they are passing along misinformation.



It is hard to imagine, after reading what these two men believed, how any Christian that espouses the fundamentals of the faith could align himself with the likes of these two characters.

First, given that Chick and Ripplinger have proven that they are willing to dissemble in order to attack these two men, I wouldn't trust a single word about what they have to say about either Wescott or Hort.

Second, this whole argument is a logical fallacy to begin with.



However, every person choosing a modern version over the King James Bible does just that.

This is seriously like saying, "Jehovah's witnesses like icecream so no self respect Trinitarian would ever go to Baskin Robbins. Everyone one who does is aligning themselves with the Jehovah's witnesses."

Wescott and Hort didn't write the Alexandrian Codices, they just preferred them to the TR in terms of their assessment of reliability, mainly because the texts that underly the TR can't be any early than 10th century manuscripts while Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are 4th century texts.

My coming to the same conclusion doesn't align me with Wescott and Hort anymore than preferring the KJV aligns you with the Mormons.




The King James Bible New Testament comes from the Majority Text (that is, from those manuscripts that agree with each other and are most prevalent.)

No it does not!

The KJV comes from the 5 works of Erasmus, the 4 works of Stephanus and the wors of Beza.

The KJV translators had less than 15 Greek manuscripts to work with and the total number of ancient texts underlying the KJV is likely much less than 25 and I use the term ancient loosely because it is likely than none of them predate the turn of the 10th century.

If you read my post to AMR, you will see that there are places in the KJV that clearly do not represent the majority text. In fact, they don't even represent a minority text. There are places in the KJV that have absolutely no Greek witness whatsoever.

The number of Greek texts that stand behind some translational choices = 0 in some places.



Unlike the translators of 1611, Westcott and Hort rejected the Majority Text and relied heavily on the Alexandrian manuscripts which included the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts.

Yes, because they are much earlier.



These two men regarded the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus as authoritative, yet these two manuscripts disagree with each other over 3,000 times in the Gospels alone.


Textual variants are not only present between Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. The KJV differs form the Majority Text in about a thousand places.

kiwimacahau
March 13th, 2015, 07:47 PM
Hmm <crickets>

kayaker
March 13th, 2015, 08:09 PM
You are a liar. THe Anglican church has never removed the BCP or the 39 Articles ; Westcott and Hort were not homosexuals and were certainly not any form of Catholic. The KJV is an inferior translation. Further, you would not know the truth if it bit you upon the sit-upon.

Take a look at my post #150 to Mocking You on the bottom of page ten, then. What sayest thou, Kiwi?

kayaker

Daniel1611
March 13th, 2015, 08:14 PM
You are a liar. THe Anglican church has never removed the BCP or the 39 Articles ; Westcott and Hort were not homosexuals and were certainly not any form of Catholic. The KJV is an inferior translation. Further, you would not know the truth if it bit you upon the sit-upon.

Inferior to what? A translation like the NIV done by homos and unbelievers?

everready
March 13th, 2015, 08:16 PM
From their own mouths.

The following quotes from the diaries and letters of Westcott and Hort demonstrate their serious departures from orthodoxy, revealing their opposition to evangelical Protestantism and sympathies with Rome and ritualism. Many more could be given. Their views on Scripture and the Text are highlighted.

http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/hort.htm

everready

kayaker
March 13th, 2015, 08:52 PM
The troof is in the pudding, folks. And, the truth is greater than the sum of all knowledge. The truth is greater than translations, while some translations get closer than others, and other translations take us farther. We can eloquently argue translations from every angle, but the truth in God's Word is timeless. I proffer the closer to the truth in a translation, the farther from 'church' we get. And, this notion resonates with Matthew 8:19 KJV, Matthew 8:20 KJV. We all hunger for the truth... I hereby testify that I do quite well the the KJV. I don't see this happening with many translations.

So, what about you Chrysostom? I've already pointed out the USCCB Catholic Bible falls more than short translating Genesis 4:23 KJV. The USCCB Catholic Bible falls short translating Genesis 9:22 KJV. These are two very significant disparities. Maybe you can point out significant disparities in the KJV?

I've personally heard plenty regarding the character and sources of translators. Quite illuminating. But the truth remains in the pudding. Mock You at least threw a little steak on the barbie...

kayaker

kiwimacahau
March 13th, 2015, 09:57 PM
From their own mouths.

The following quotes from the diaries and letters of Westcott and Hort demonstrate their serious departures from orthodoxy, revealing their opposition to evangelical Protestantism and sympathies with Rome and ritualism. Many more could be given. Their views on Scripture and the Text are highlighted.

http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/hort.htm

everready

David Stewart is merely repeating the lies others have spouted. Further not one thing he says is correct because the quotes are cribbed or details are left out. Try Westcotthort.com (http://www.westcotthort.com/faqs.html)

kiwimacahau
March 13th, 2015, 09:58 PM
Inferior to what? A translation like the NIV done by homos and unbelievers?

Proof please, not simply innuendo. Pony up with the proof.

Nazaroo
March 14th, 2015, 06:03 AM
Hort was a fag.

In fact, anyone who willingly opts for a 'priest' career is obviously a fag.

They hate women. How else can it be explained.

Quit denying the obvious.


http://www.myaccess305.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/group-of-women-laughing.jpg

kayaker
March 14th, 2015, 06:47 AM
Proof please, not simply innuendo. Pony up with the proof.

Try putting this discussion in a more positive light, sincerely. How about proof the NIV is superior to the KJV? So, if I may... let's put the translations to the proof test, Kiwi, rather truth test. This is what its all about, isn't it? Jesus spoke the truth, did He not? The Bible, all translations, are about truth, correct?

1) Was Rahab the Canaanite harlot in the ancestry of Jesus contrary to Leviticus 21:7 NIV, Leviticus 21:14 NIV, Leviticus 21:15 NIV, Deuteronomy 7:1, 2, 3, Joshua 3:10 NIV, Ezra 9:1, 2, 3, 7? The NIV spells the name of the wife of Salmon, RaHab (Matthew 1:5 NIV). But, the KJV spells the name of Salmon's wife RaCHab (Matthew 1:5 KJV) suggesting a different woman with names as different as Rachel and Raquel. How do you advise this potential convert to the your church, or refer them to a particular translation?

2) Can you please explain Genesis 4:23 NIV? Who did Lamech kill? Why did the alleged perpetrator want to injure Lamech in the first place? In the grand scheme of things... what lesson is to be learned here that doesn't sound like a random, drive-by shooting in God's word?

3) What is the significant of "sevenfold," and "seventy and sevenfold" in Genesis 4:24 NIV associated with Lamech killing someone... maybe two folk?

4) What's the problem with Noah being naked in his own tent in Genesis 9:22 NIV? What was the point of Ham telling his two brothers outside the tent, that their dad was naked in his own tent? In fact, what the Sam daylights was Ham doing in Noah's tent in the first place? Do you think Noah's wife might have been passed out, blind drunk, and butt-naked also in her and Noah's tent?

5) Why was Canaan cursed for something his father Ham did? What exactly was the curse of Canaan?

If there's any consolation, Kiwi... our highly esteemed posters AMR and Dialogos will likely retire to their studies, a good thing. It doesn't matter if the translators of all translations were gay. There is a difference between teaching from the pulpits, and teaching from the translations. The arrival generation ("seventy and sevenfold", Genesis 4:24 NIV) of our Savior was prophesied by no less than a descendant of Cain, a message hidden for six thousand years... Count these generations in Luke 3:38 NIV with God is generation #1, Adam generation #2, Seth #3... this prophesy is in all the translations! Was this some random coincidence in God's Holy Word? Lamech killed someone, proclaimed the mark of Cain, and poof... rather mysteriously and abruptly, that was the last we heard about Cain's descendants in the OT. What was the mark of Cain?

God's truth seems to find a way, folks. And, in all sincerity... I see the way more clearly with the KJV. And, it's not KJV Onlyism... or any other Bible Onlyism, or collection, thereof. Where's the Holy Spirit of TRUTH in this equation? Good people, this is no small task to address the above questions; a job for the Holy Spirit... not translators who I trust had an inkling. Peter was told to feed Jesus' sheep, lost sheep, btw. The NT wasn't even written, then... Sadly to say, if any one of us was up for slaughter... there's hardly enough OT meat (truth) on these bones to make lamb stew for one.

I became a Matthew 8:20 KJV follower because I was starving to death speaking of the valley of dry bones in Ezekiel 37. With all due respect to every poster, there's hardly a snack of God's truth on this thread... may God have mercy on us all!

kayaker

john w
March 14th, 2015, 10:26 AM
"Bible scholar"

Translation: An "expert", who is so arrogant, he/she thinks they are so smart, they can correct a perfect God, and a perfect book, and thus call Him/the Holy Bible a lie/liar, respectively, who did the best He could, but lost His master piece to the all powerful, corrupting elements of the rain, sand, wind, heat, cold, even though He created those same elements, and the universe, and raises the dead.....and He must now rely/trust the "manuscript detectives" to "help Him out" in finding this master peace, as they rummage through versions, concordances, scraps of ms., lexicons, unicials, majuscules, cursives, miniscules interlinears, the funny papers....and hold rummage sales wherein they offer all sorts of scrawny, scruffy, scraggly, leftover, tacky, tossed out, trashed, secondhand, second class, second-rate, paltry, worthless, odds and ends of "better renderings" that reflect the "subtil"(Gen. 3 KJV) nuances of a dead language, versions, translations, "root words", etc., all spewed over their theological yards/driveways, and clogging their ecclesiastical garages, all while assuring us country hillbillies/bumpkins that their junk is the finest, most improved, latest and greatest, better/best, all brand name goods-at least until the next rummage/garage sale.


Yes, these "Bible/Greek scholars" have more truth than us dumb bible believers. You kiddies that swear on your "the Greek", and your alleged "scholarship", can never find as much truth as a bible believer, because the first requisite for discovering the truth is a believing heart, and the next is a humble mind, and where these 2 ingredients are vacant, 100 years of formal education in "the original languages" will no more equip you to teach, preach, the truth, then 100 years as a communist, in the red army of China.

Bible believers, in contrast to bible correctors/agnostics("scholars"), have a Holy Bible, which we believe. It is perfect, because it is based on the faithfulness of God, not men, and on God's promise, not man's intellect. No one can prove otherwise, nor do they have to. Others are too ignorant to understand it. It's a heart problem-always has been, always will be.That is why they imagine the Holy Bible has errors, and they are too ignorant to believe the LORD God, and instead they believe sinful men, who also have found no errors in the Holy Bible, but, muse, "Here are my errors, from a corrupt bible, that corrects the KJB errors."


If you are not careful, bible correctors/agnostics/rummagers will "Greek/Hebrew" you out of faith in the Holy Bible, and into heathenism. If you are not careful, you can be drawn into their madness(Eccl. 10:13 KJV). I avoid this pitfall, by staying on topic. And the bible corrector/agnostic's topic is:

Nobody has a copy of the scriptures, that is inerrant, that anybody can preach, teach, much less believe. And, to "prove" this, they appeal to "the scriptures", which do not exist=trying to convince the sheep, the gullible babes in Christ, that God did not preserve His word, by appealing to the scriptures, which God did not preserve. It is called anti-thinking. It is called insanity.

"My bad"("The Modern 'the' English")-"nuttin'" like a bible believer, to ruin a "bible" study...

everready
March 14th, 2015, 10:39 AM
David Stewart is merely repeating the lies others have spouted. Further not one thing he says is correct because the quotes are cribbed or details are left out. Try Westcotthort.com (http://www.westcotthort.com/faqs.html)

Its not just Dave Stewart.

http://www.google.com/custom?q=westcott+and+hort&sa=Search&cof=S%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fbiblebelievers.com%3BAH%3Acen ter%3BAWFID%3A520ac41024377c69%3B&domains=biblebelievers.com&sitesearch=biblebelievers.com


everready

kiwimacahau
March 14th, 2015, 03:36 PM
Its not just Dave Stewart.

http://www.google.com/custom?q=westcott+and+hort&sa=Search&cof=S%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fbiblebelievers.com%3BAH%3Acen ter%3BAWFID%3A520ac41024377c69%3B&domains=biblebelievers.com&sitesearch=biblebelievers.com


everready

They are all quoting from either Benjamin G. Wilkinson or J.J. Ray's redaction of that work. Herewith Wilkinson's errors (http://www.kjvonly.org/gary/eye_opener.htm) and another essay on KJV-Onlyism. (http://www.kjvonly.org/doug/unlearned_men.htm)

Mocking You
March 14th, 2015, 03:41 PM
They are all quoting from either Benjamin G. Wilkinson or J.J. Ray's redaction of that work. Herewith Wilkinson's errors (http://www.kjvonly.org/gary/eye_opener.htm) and another essay on KJV-Onlyism. (http://www.kjvonly.org/doug/unlearned_men.htm)

This is typical fare. One person writes a (flawed) book, then another one writes a book heavily quoting the first author. Then the bandwagoneers quote these two books.

BTW, your links don't work.

kiwimacahau
March 14th, 2015, 03:52 PM
Dang! Let's try this again: J.J. Ray's redaction of Wilkinson's book (http://biblechartsbyjerry.blogspot.co.nz/2014/07/the-real-eye-opener-j-j-rays-plagiarism.html) and Kutilek's book on KJV Onlyism (http://www.kjvonly.org/doug/kutilek_unlearned_men.htm)

everready
March 14th, 2015, 08:53 PM
You ought to really find this a good read, called The Attack

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0031/0031_01.asp

everready

kiwimacahau
March 14th, 2015, 10:27 PM
Jack Chick? Really?

Daniel1611
March 15th, 2015, 12:35 PM
Show me where any translation is better than the KJV, and explain why it is superior.

As D.A. Waite explains in great detail in "Defending the King James Bible," The KJV is superior to ALL modern Bible versions in its manuscripts, translators, translation technique and theology. What can anyone say about the NIV or NLT?

The modern versions based on the Critical Text and such manuscripts are not only inferior to the KJV, but they are of the devil. That's why they are created by apostates, homos and other nonbelievers.

False Prophet
March 15th, 2015, 01:38 PM
John Wycliffe set the tone for the Authorized Version with seventy percent of its words translated from the Hebrew, Greek and Latin.

Mocking You
March 15th, 2015, 02:06 PM
Show me where any translation is better than the KJV, and explain why it is superior.

I could spend hours giving examples which you would reject, so what's the point? I guess I would start out with Acts 12:4 where the KJV translates Passover as "Easter".


As D.A. Waite explains in great detail in "Defending the King James Bible," The KJV is superior to ALL modern Bible versions in its manuscripts, translators, translation technique and theology. What can anyone say about the NIV or NLT?

That the NIV is better.


The modern versions based on the Critical Text and such manuscripts are not only inferior to the KJV, but they are of the devil. That's why they are created by apostates, homos and other nonbelievers.

Yes, they are of the devil because "scholars" like Jack Chick and a charlatan like Gail Riplinger say so.

kayaker
March 15th, 2015, 03:08 PM
I could spend hours giving examples which you would reject, so what's the point? I guess I would start out with Acts 12:4 where the KJV translates Passover as "Easter"

Bingo! Indeed... I embrace the notion of Paschal/Passover. NIV gets the point! This is a significant disparity. You're a man after my own heart... a dude with the spiritual fortitudes to toss a little steak on the barbie! (I'm not a fag... even though Nazaroo would probably argue the point, LOL!)

So far... Matthew 1:5 KJV v. Matthew 1:5 NIV... the KJV takes the lead that a harlot turning tricks in the back of Victoria's Secrets at mall of Jericho was not in the lineage of Jesus. The NIV, among numerous translations, casts a shadow on the 'name' of Jesus, his ancestry.

Also, Genesis 9:23 KJV v. Genesis 9:23 NIV... the KJV takes the lead considering Leviticus 18:8 KJV, Leviticus 20:11 KJV, Deuteronomy 22:30 KJV, and Deuteronomy 27:20 KJV. These verses shine a light in Noah's tent, while the NIV leaves folk in the dark suggesting Ham might have been a gay voyeur.

Furthermore, Genesis 4:23 KJV v. Genesis 4:23 NIV leaves the door open to meditate on who Lamech's victim was, who Lamech remorsefully killed (his relatively young, beloved great-grandfather, Cain); while the NIV translators suggest Lamech was somehow defending himself from an unknown aggressor, with an unknown agenda, and possibly two aggressor/victims.

Granted, many Christians are deluded into following the pagan celebration of Easter, me too for many years. Few have a clue about the event in Noah's tent regardless of translation, most deny the 'name' of Jesus thrusting a harlot in his ancestry, also regardless of translation. Who Lamech killed might be better discussed in a classroom, but I do toss out the notion there is no evidence Cain was ever punished for the premeditated murder of Abel. Seth lived 912 years and died before the flood (Genesis 5:8 KJV)... so, something ain't right 'chyall!

I prefer the KJV. But, if you have some other disparities of significance... toss 'em out! You're on target bringing up Easter v. Passover, great point, impeccable timing in fact! My faith is quite strong enough to appreciate your post. Finally... someone's in the kitchen! Maybe this thread will get us closer to the truth, now. I'm listening, Mock!

kayaker

Mocking You
March 15th, 2015, 04:43 PM
I prefer the KJV. But, if you have some other disparities of significance... toss 'em out! You're on target bringing up Easter v. Passover, great point, impeccable timing in fact! My faith is quite strong enough to appreciate your post. Finally... someone's in the kitchen! Maybe this thread will get us closer to the truth, now. I'm listening, Mock!

kayaker

I've been collecting them over the years. I've got a KJV/NIV parallel Bible so I find a lot of them. I've got a list in a document on my PC that will keep us busy for days but I'm not near my PC right now.

Here's some from memory:

Deuteronomy 8:9 KJV
A land wherein thou shalt eat bread without scarceness, thou shalt not lack any thing in it; a land whose stones are iron, and out of whose hills thou mayest dig brass.

Deuteronomy 8:9 NIV
a land where bread will not be scarce and you will lack nothing; a land where the rocks are iron and you can dig copper out of the hills.

Note: Brass is a man-made alloy consisting of copper and zinc. You can't dig brass out of the ground!


Ecclesiastes 11:1 KJV
Cast thy bread upon the waters: for thou shalt find it after many days.

Care to tell me exactly what this verse is saying, without consulting a commentary or a different translation?

WonderfulLordJesus
March 15th, 2015, 05:25 PM
I've been collecting them over the years. I've got a KJV/NIV parallel Bible so I find a lot of them. I've got a list in a document on my PC that will keep us busy for days but I'm not near my PC right now.

Here's some from memory:

Deuteronomy 8:9 KJV
A land wherein thou shalt eat bread without scarceness, thou shalt not lack any thing in it; a land whose stones are iron, and out of whose hills thou mayest dig brass.

Deuteronomy 8:9 NIV
a land where bread will not be scarce and you will lack nothing; a land where the rocks are iron and you can dig copper out of the hills.

Note: Brass is a man-made alloy consisting of copper and zinc. You can't dig brass out of the ground!


Ecclesiastes 11:1 KJV
Cast thy bread upon the waters: for thou shalt find it after many days.

Care to tell me exactly what this verse is saying, without consulting a commentary or a different translation?

Don't get me wrong, as I'm not of a King James only cult, happen to prefer it to other Bibles and trust it, but don't find the general conversation meaningful, personally.

That said, this merely a point of order, and also that I sometimes feel like being obnoxious, just like everybody else here. Again, not seeking to burn as a witch anybody caught with an RSV, but why couldn't they have dug brass, to clarify,

A native metal is any metal that is found in its metallic form, either pure or as an alloy, in nature. Metals that can be found as native deposits singly and/or in alloys include aluminium, antimony, arsenic, bismuth, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, indium, iron, manganese, molybdenum, nickel, rhenium, selenium, tantalum, tellurium, tin, titanium, tungsten, and zinc, as well as two groups of metals: the gold group, and the platinum group. The gold group consists of gold, copper, lead, aluminium, mercury, and silver. The platinum group consists of platinum, iridium, osmium, palladium, rhodium, and ruthenium. Amongst the alloys found in native state have been brass, bronze, pewter, German silver, electrum, white gold, and silver-mercury and gold-mercury amalgam.

So, put that in your pipe and smelt it. In addition, if one saw something like, "In due season, you will harvest your wine," this could easily be a way of referring to harvesting grapes, with a rhetorical flair, sort of like that, if somebody doesn't get a joke, it's not the joke, rather one not understanding the humor the problem, not making a connection.

(The Hebrew word is considered pretty brassy.)

An afterthought, though no less important, why could God have not put a massive deposit of brass in them thar' hills, anyway? When do we get off this notion the workings of Almighty God, the Creator, have to conform to natural science? So many people, everywhere and all the time, seem to have the notion of a God who creates everything in the universe, Who afterward must answer to Darwin and the school board as to His methodologies. After all, we now have flush toilets, therefore know better?

Daniel1611
March 15th, 2015, 06:04 PM
I could spend hours giving examples which you would reject, so what's the point? I guess I would start out with Acts 12:4 where the KJV translates Passover as "Easter".

The KJV translates "pascha" as "Easter" in this verse because "Passover" is not correct.

The KJV basically says that Herod captured Peter after the Jews' Passover (Then were the days of unleavened bread) and held him until after Herod's own pagan Easter.

The NIV basically says that Herod captured Peter after Passover (then were the days of unleavened bread) and held him until after Passover. What?

Mocking You
March 15th, 2015, 06:20 PM
A native metal is any metal that is found in its metallic form, either pure or as an alloy, in nature. Amongst the alloys found in native state have been brass, bronze, pewter, German silver, electrum, white gold, and silver-mercury and gold-mercury amalgam.

Yes, "native" alloys are usually the result of being forged in a volcano. It might be useful to look at the original Hebrew word. Anyway, no translation in the past 100+ years translates it as brass.




An afterthought, though no less important, why could God have not put a massive deposit of brass in them thar' hills, anyway? When do we get off this notion the workings of Almighty God, the Creator, have to conform to natural science?

What is the boundary for using this argument? It can be used to explain anything. If God wanted to make the dark side of the moon out of cheese who am I to say it isn't? He could do it, you know!

WonderfulLordJesus
March 15th, 2015, 06:38 PM
What is the boundary for using this argument? It can be used to explain anything. If God wanted to make the dark side of the moon out of cheese who am I to say it isn't? He could do it, you know!

Well, no boundary, to my mind. And yes, if I were a Christian astronaut, on a mission to the dark side of the moon, and the Bible said it was made of cheese, I'd bring some hamburger and a space grill, as well as some bread (that had not been previously cast on to water), and have cheeseburgers, sure that I wouldn't have to bring any cheese and not finding the question relevant where there would have been the cows to make cheese. He's more than a God of science. He's a God of miracles, all things possible to Him, Creator and Master of matter, space and time. If there's something I don't understand, it's because I'm ignorant or stupid, a malady unknown to God. If you can get past Genesis 1:1, mining brass is nothing. Where did the manna come from in the wilderness? The wine at the wedding? What's some brass?

Mocking You
March 15th, 2015, 06:52 PM
The KJV translates "pascha" as "Easter" in this verse because "Passover" is not correct.


Passover is not correct, huh? No translation since the KJV uses Easter here, all use Passover.

But let's say in this one and only instance the word "pascha" does not mean Passover. Isn't it irresponsible for the KJV translators to use the word "Easter" here knowing that any reader would assume they mean the Easter of Christians and not "Herod's Easter"? Or, why not just say "Herod's Easter" if that's what they meant?

So, when is Ishtar ("Herod's Easter") celebrated?

WonderfulLordJesus
March 15th, 2015, 07:05 PM
Passover is not correct, huh? No translation since the KJV uses Easter here, all use Passover.

But let's say in this one and only instance the word "pascha" does not mean Passover. Isn't it irresponsible for the KJV translators to use the word "Easter" here knowing that any reader would assume they mean the Easter of Christians and not "Herod's Easter"? Or, why not just say "Herod's Easter" if that's what they meant?

So, when is Ishtar ("Herod's Easter") celebrated?

Also found this mystifying, since when Pascha isn't of Passover, whether the sacrifice or the feast, and why the context isn't that Herod didn't wish to desecrate the Jewish Passover with some more murder, though he got a high off killing James. Also, what was Herod ever known to be devout over, than himself? Would he have let the calendar get in the way of something politically expedient? Cheese on the dark side of the moon makes more sense, to me. Something else, Easter is very ancient, and the earliest Christians would have celebrated the resurrection of our Lord Jesus, which coincides with the Passover time frame, for whatever that's worth. Still, that word Pascha is Passover, all about Passover.

The Hebrew for brass is translated brass 103 times in the KJV, only 1 time copper, also for what that's worth.

Right Divider
March 15th, 2015, 07:50 PM
Here's my list from dr Fruchtenbaum on closest translations
1. Asv 1901
2. NASB
3. NKJV
4. ESV
5. Kjv
Closest to WHAT?

Mocking You
March 15th, 2015, 09:23 PM
Well, no boundary, to my mind. And yes, if I were a Christian astronaut, on a mission to the dark side of the moon, and the Bible said it was made of cheese,

I never meant to imply the Bible said the moon was made of cheese. My example of using the argument saying God can do anything renders any debate moot. There's no rebuttal. It's a variation on the Celestial Teapot argument.

kayaker
March 15th, 2015, 09:39 PM
I've been collecting them over the years. I've got a KJV/NIV parallel Bible so I find a lot of them. I've got a list in a document on my PC that will keep us busy for days but I'm not near my PC right now.

Here's some from memory:

Deuteronomy 8:9 KJV
A land wherein thou shalt eat bread without scarceness, thou shalt not lack any thing in it; a land whose stones are iron, and out of whose hills thou mayest dig brass.

Deuteronomy 8:9 NIV
a land where bread will not be scarce and you will lack nothing; a land where the rocks are iron and you can dig copper out of the hills.

Note: Brass is a man-made alloy consisting of copper and zinc. You can't dig brass out of the ground!


Ecclesiastes 11:1 KJV
Cast thy bread upon the waters: for thou shalt find it after many days.

Care to tell me exactly what this verse is saying, without consulting a commentary or a different translation?

Thanks, Mock!

I'll cautiously suggest that I can't see any real significance between the verses in Deuteronomy. WonderfulLordJesus seems to think there may be some relevance that brass has been mined. I wasn't aware of this, metallurgy is definitely NOT in my skill set... It would be interesting to find if brass actually was mined in that area. There is mention that Cain's great---grandson Tubal-cain was an "artificer in brass" (Genesis 4:22 KJV). The land in question was originally given to Canaan (and Ham), later to become the Promised Land.

The Jewish theologians suggest these metals were used for weapons, yet they proffer then near-blind Lamech accidentally shot Cain with an arrow, metal arrow-head I suppose, during a hunting accident as Lamech's direction was dictated by his son, Tubal-cain. That's rather bizarre extrapolation from Genesis 4:23 KJV... so Lamech accidentally killed Cain, blamed Tubal-cain... and, beat his son to death for the misdirection. That's the kinda stuff Apostle Paul defected from, btw.

I've looked at Ecclesiastes 11:1 KJV as you suggested. Not in my skill set. Sounds rather prophetic, and prophesies tend to inherently leave a little wobble room, respectfully. I haven't looked to see if there is any difference in the NIV translation. But, no doubt there are considerable translation differences as you've pointed out. I admire your studious endeavor in that regard. Possibly you can filter through and see which disparities involve rather significant events, like Noah's tent, for instance? Genesis 4:23 KJV is another one of those pivotal cases that sorta leaves me scratching my head... I just doesn't add up that Cain was never punished, he was told he would be, but not that I can find... he had a family, and built a city. Just doesn't add up. But, filter through those you've stored, and toss a few out. Let's take a look-see!

kayaker

kayaker
March 15th, 2015, 09:48 PM
I never meant to imply the Bible said the moon was made of cheese. My example of using the argument saying God can do anything renders any debate moot. There's no rebuttal. It's a variation on the Celestial Teapot argument.

With all due respect... it ain't made of cheese... I went there once when I was in college, and... you know! LOL! I'm an ole Pink Floyd fan. Maybe WonderfulLordJesus can take a look at mining data from the middle-east, surf it up... definitely has my curiosity up. The Jews suggest Lamech killed Cain with a mis-placed arrow... I suggest Lamech used the Samuri sword (made by the artificer, Tubal-cain), and took Cain out execution style! Well, it does sound befitting, but God already spared Cain's life. I proffer Cain was executed for violating parole and siring a son, and building a city, contrary to being a fugitive and a vagabond!

kayaker

kayaker
March 15th, 2015, 10:10 PM
John Wycliffe set the tone for the Authorized Version with seventy percent of its words translated from the Hebrew, Greek and Latin.

I'm not familiar with the AV, either. Couldn't figure it out on biblehub. How does the AV translate Matthew 1:5 KJV v. Matthew 1:5 NIV; Genesis 9:22 KJV v. Genesis 9:22 NIV, and Genesis 4:23 KJV v. Genesis 4:23 NIV? These are three very pivotal verses in my feeble theology.

Thanks,

kayaker

Mocking You
March 16th, 2015, 11:49 AM
Admiration or Astonishment? Are we to believe John looked upon the Great Whore of Rev. 17:6 with admiration?

Rev. 17:6 And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration. [KJV]

Rev. 17:6 I saw that the woman was drunk with the blood of God’s holy people, the blood of those who bore testimony to Jesus. When I saw her, I was greatly astonished. [NIV]

Daniel1611
March 16th, 2015, 06:06 PM
Admiration or Astonishment? Are we to believe John looked upon the Great Whore of Rev. 17:6 with admiration?

Rev. 17:6 And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration. [KJV]

Rev. 17:6 I saw that the woman was drunk with the blood of God’s holy people, the blood of those who bore testimony to Jesus. When I saw her, I was greatly astonished. [NIV]

Merriam-Webster, bro. The first definition says "wonder." Great wonder and great astonishment both mean the same thing.

Mocking You
March 16th, 2015, 06:09 PM
Merriam-Webster, bro. The first definition says "wonder." Great wonder and great astonishment both mean the same thing.

LOL. You just totally skipped over the word "admiration"!

Merriam Webster, bro.

Admiration: noun a feeling of great respect and approval

Daniel1611
March 16th, 2015, 06:13 PM
LOL. You just skipped over the word "admiration" totally! Nice.

Merriam Webster, bro.

Admiration: noun a feeling of great respect and approval

What? I am telling you that the first definition of "admiration" in Merriam-Webster is "wonder." You're saying "admiration" is not the same as "astonishment." Merriam-Webster disagrees with you. Look up a word's definition before you say it's incorrect.

Daniel1611
March 16th, 2015, 06:15 PM
LOL. You just totally skipped over the word "admiration"!

Merriam Webster, bro.

Admiration: noun a feeling of great respect and approval

Admiration

1. archaic : wonder
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/admiration

This would be the usage in the KJV.

Mocking You
March 16th, 2015, 06:22 PM
Admiration

1. archaic : wonder
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/admiration

This would be the usage in the KJV.

Ah yes, I forgot. I'm supposed to have my 1828 Webster's dictionary with me at all times when I read the KJV.

So, this verse says, in essence:

Rev. 17:6 And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great wonder. [KJV]

Daniel1611
March 16th, 2015, 06:31 PM
Ah yes, I forgot. I'm supposed to have my 1828 Webster's dictionary with me at all times when I read the KJV.

So, this verse says, in essence:

Rev. 17:6 And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great wonder. [KJV]

You don't need an 1828 dictionary. A modern day Webster's dictionary or Merriam-Webster.com will work. It's the first definition. Or just type "define admiration" into Google.

WonderfulLordJesus
March 16th, 2015, 06:33 PM
You don't need an 1828 dictionary. A modern day Webster's dictionary or Merriam-Webster.com will work. It's the first definition. Or just type "define admiration" into Google.

I think you're all premature. What are her measurements?

Daniel1611
March 16th, 2015, 06:35 PM
I think you're all premature. What are her measurements?

What?

WonderfulLordJesus
March 16th, 2015, 06:38 PM
What?

Never mind. Ask your Dad.

Mocking You
March 16th, 2015, 07:30 PM
You don't need an 1828 dictionary. A modern day Webster's dictionary or Merriam-Webster.com will work. It's the first definition. Or just type "define admiration" into Google.

Why? Why should I need a dictionary of archaic definitions or Google to understand the Bible?

Simon Baker
March 16th, 2015, 07:39 PM
Why? Why should I need a dictionary of archaic definitions or Google to understand the Bible?

Yes, To Keep Up With The Current Terminology Of The Day. Otherwise, You Cannot Read

Simon Baker
March 16th, 2015, 07:47 PM
I've been collecting them over the years. I've got a KJV/NIV parallel Bible so I find a lot of them. I've got a list in a document on my PC that will keep us busy for days but I'm not near my PC right now.

Here's some from memory:

Deuteronomy 8:9 KJV
A land wherein thou shalt eat bread without scarceness, thou shalt not lack any thing in it; a land whose stones are iron, and out of whose hills thou mayest dig brass.

Deuteronomy 8:9 NIV
a land where bread will not be scarce and you will lack nothing; a land where the rocks are iron and you can dig copper out of the hills.

Note: Brass is a man-made alloy consisting of copper and zinc. You can't dig brass out of the ground!



Ecclesiastes 11:1 KJV
Cast thy bread upon the waters: for thou shalt find it after many days.

Care to tell me exactly what this verse is saying, without consulting a commentary or a different translation?



Seeds ? BTW, Ecclesiastes Is Not Necessarily God's Word, From Solomon. Solomon's Own Words

Mocking You
March 16th, 2015, 08:45 PM
Yes, To Keep Up With The Current Terminology Of The Day. Otherwise, You Cannot Read

People that use the KJV might find it useful to have a dictionary that included archaic definitions, but I don't see the need when reading the NIV.

kayaker
March 16th, 2015, 08:58 PM
Admiration or Astonishment? Are we to believe John looked upon the Great Whore of Rev. 17:6 with admiration?

Rev. 17:6 And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration. [KJV]

Rev. 17:6 I saw that the woman was drunk with the blood of God’s holy people, the blood of those who bore testimony to Jesus. When I saw her, I was greatly astonished. [NIV]

Very interesting! I suspect a non-Christian onlooker would arrive at the notion John had some form of envy, so to speak, per the KJV. The word "astonished" seems to have either positive or negative connotation in my feeble mind, although a similar word "astonied" was used by Ezra in v. 3 from Ezra 9:1 KJV, Ezra 9:2 KJV, Ezra 9:3 KJV. "Astonied" had a very negative connotation in the theme of that verse, and I did scratch my head for a moment on that one. Then, comparing "astonied" in the third verse KJV with Ezra 9:3 NIV, I suspect "appalled" would be a better term for Revelation 17:6 KJV, and Revelation 17:6 NIV, capturing a more negative connotation as I gather in the theme of this verse in Revelation.

Possibly stretching the point a bit... I do 'admire' the skill of the last ping-pong player who defeated me! Well, he knew he was challenged, LOL! In fact, the last lady of the evening who approached me... to say I didn't 'admire' her would be a lie! I was rather 'astonished' with her beauty. But, that's all I did besides smile, extend my gratitude... and, a backwards glance. Some would be 'astonished' that I didn't cash out on that queen of the evening! While others would be 'appalled' if I had.

I do give a slight preference to the use of "astonished" in the NIV. But, I think the theme dictates the negative connotation, and the KJV requires a little more 'humor.' The KJV does cause me to scratch my head, but only for a moment considering the theme. The word "great" and "greatly" preceding "admiration" and "astonishment" almost lend a positive connotation to both words.

My cent-and-a-half... Thanks!

kayaker

Mocking You
March 16th, 2015, 09:03 PM
I suspect "appalled" would be a better term for Revelation 17:6 KJV, and Revelation 17:6 NIV, capturing a more negative connotation as I gather in the theme of this verse in Revelation.


The fact is that the KJV uses the word, "admiration". That is an archaic word and 21st century readers would take that word at face value, i.e. "great respect and approval".

You may think appalled would be a better word to use here, but it is nowhere near the meaning of the Greek. If "appalled" was the word used in the text it would be a gross mis-translation of the Greek. We can't go around assigning meanings to the words of the Bible as we see fit. Neither should old out-dated meanings be left in there as if they were valid.

kayaker
March 16th, 2015, 09:54 PM
The fact is that the KJV uses the word, "admiration". That is an archaic word and 21st century readers would take that word at face value, i.e. "great respect and approval".

You may think appalled would be a better word to use here, but it is nowhere near the meaning of the Greek. If "appalled" was the word used in the text it would be a gross mis-translation of the Greek. We can't go around assigning meanings to the words of the Bible as we see fit. Neither should old out-dated meanings be left in there as if they were valid.

You hint at the notion meanings applied in history don't necessarily correlate with meaning of that word, today. Cool? She was hot, btw! I think Nazaroo and Dialogos oughta hook-up and work on some of these disparities!

If you had the option to select another word for "admiration" for todays' reader of the KJV, to appropriately convey your perception... do you think "appalled" would convey the more appropriate connotation to today's English speaking reader? I personally think "appalled" gets closer to the negative connotation of the theme than "astonished", and certainly closer than "admired." Does this not capture the notion of your preference for the NIV? Interestingly, maybe Bibles need to be translated to better reflect cultural dialect. Should Bibles be translated with cultural flair?

Genesis 4:23 KJV leaves the 'door open', so to speak, and I proffer intentionally so inviting the reader's curiosity about who Lamech's victim was. While Genesis 4:23 NIV depicts the translator's perception of what's beyond the door suggesting Lamech was assaulted. I never got that impression from the KJV. There is no remorse perceived in the NIV, but the door is open for the perception of Lamech's remorse in the KJV to my fallible understanding. I suppose there's no remorse for killing an assaulter. But, the notion of remorse is preserved in the KJV, whether perceived by the reader or not... and, I seriously doubt most KJV readers even capture this.

I suggest the translation depends more on the translator's inspired perception of the truth, than on the translators skill in both languages. Then, there's the reader's fluency in the language, and, more importantly... the reader's grasp of the theme to inspire the intended meaning of those words. This gets into the character of the translators as has been exhausted on this thread. But, this also gets into the inspiration of the reader. It's sorta like piecing a phenomenal puzzle together without ever having seen the entire box top... some see a few pieces fitting together and imagine the box top. Words are not necessarily stencil cut due to varying meanings even impacted by one's culture. So, in a sense... a translator cuts the pieces of the puzzle to fit akin to selecting words that fit the perceived box top.

I'm 'astonished' we have what we do!

I've gotta hit the sack... appreciate the dialogue, Mock.

kayaker

Nazaroo
March 16th, 2015, 10:14 PM
"Bible scholar"

Translation: An "expert", who is so arrogant, he/she thinks they are so smart, they can correct a perfect God, and a perfect book, and thus call Him/the Holy Bible a lie/liar, respectively, who did the best He could, but lost His master piece to the all powerful, corrupting elements of the rain, sand, wind, heat, cold, even though He created those same elements, and the universe, and raises the dead.....and He must now rely/trust the "manuscript detectives" to "help Him out" in finding this master peace, as they rummage through versions, concordances, scraps of ms., lexicons, unicials, majuscules, cursives, miniscules interlinears, the funny papers....and hold rummage sales wherein they offer all sorts of scrawny, scruffy, scraggly, leftover, tacky, tossed out, trashed, secondhand, second class, second-rate, paltry, worthless, odds and ends of "better renderings" that reflect the "subtil"(Gen. 3 KJV) nuances of a dead language, versions, translations, "root words", etc., all spewed over their theological yards/driveways, and clogging their ecclesiastical garages, all while assuring us country hillbillies/bumpkins that their junk is the finest, most improved, latest and greatest, better/best, all brand name goods-at least until the next rummage/garage sale.


I enjoyed the sarcasm here.

"All experts agree that..." has become a mantra to prevent people
from thinking for themselves. The authority of 'experts' is indeed bogus.
Its worth no more than other authority,
and only as good as what its built upon.
Usually its sand.



... alleged "scholarship", can never find as much truth as a bible believer, because the first requisite for discovering the truth is a believing heart, and the next is a humble mind,


^ This! Nice work John. just a bit wordy.





Bible believers, in contrast to bible correctors/agnostics("scholars"), have a Holy Bible, which we believe.


The essentials.



It is perfect, because it is based on the faithfulness of God, not men, and on God's promise, not man's intellect. No one can prove otherwise, nor do they have to. Others are too ignorant to understand it. It's a heart problem-always has been, always will be.That is why they imagine the Holy Bible has errors, and they are too ignorant to believe the LORD God, and instead they believe sinful men, who also have found no errors in the Holy Bible, but, muse, "Here are my errors, from a corrupt bible, that corrects the KJB errors."



If you are not careful, bible correctors/agnostics/rummagers will "Greek/Hebrew" you out of faith in the Holy Bible, and into heathenism. If you are not careful, you can be drawn into their madness(Eccl. 10:13 KJV). I avoid this pitfall, by staying on topic.





And the bible corrector/agnostic's topic is:

Nobody has a copy of the scriptures, that is inerrant, that anybody can preach, teach, much less believe. And, to "prove" this, they appeal to "the scriptures", which do not exist=trying to convince the sheep, the gullible babes in Christ, that God did not preserve His word, by appealing to the scriptures, which God did not preserve. It is called anti-thinking. It is called insanity.

Wicked skepticism and arrogance, the planting of lies among the innocent,
these are crimes.




"My bad"("The Modern 'the' English")-"nuttin'" like a bible believer, to ruin a "bible" study...

You can 'ruin' any of my bible studies anytime, John.

I may not always agree with you,
but I will always appreciate your sincerity.

everready
March 16th, 2015, 10:35 PM
People that use the KJV might find it useful to have a dictionary that included archaic definitions, but I don't see the need when reading the NIV.

They made the NIV easier to read so you won't notice the errors, changing words gives a different meaning to those words not to mention a vast quantity of missing text, but you already knew that.

everready

kiwimacahau
March 16th, 2015, 11:16 PM
They made the NIV easier to read so you won't notice the errors, changing words gives a different meaning to those words not to mention a vast quantity of missing text, but you already knew that.

everready

There are no deliberate errors in the NIV nor is the text 'missing,' most of what is gone was ADDED by the KJV translators.

journey
March 16th, 2015, 11:37 PM
There are no deliberate errors in the NIV nor is the text 'missing,' most of what is gone was ADDED by the KJV translators.

We also have to remember that the KJV is NOT the standard by which other translations are judged. Why? The KJV is JUST a translation.

kiwimacahau
March 16th, 2015, 11:42 PM
We also have to remember that the KJV is NOT the standard by which other translations are judged. Why? The KJV is JUST a translation.

Indeed.:Patrol:

freelight
March 16th, 2015, 11:50 PM
NASB, NIV, ESB, ASV, REB, NEB, RSV, NRSV, JB, I could go on. Any of these are better than the KJV.

Don't forget the fabulous New King James Version (NKJV), as we've been discussing in this thread here (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=106233). The NKJV is defended in its comparison of the old KJ here (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4179647&postcount=171).

There are also more interesting and some 'far out' there translations,...but like all things, do your own homework, study and research on all extant manuscripts. Honest investigation of any religious text, however inspired or exalted, includes no fear or manipulation, just honest research using one's own reason, intelligence, logic, and divine guidance. This goes for all religious texts, and not the Bible only, for those of us who are students of other religious traditions as well :)

It goes without saying, but "you cant put God in a box".

The far out extremists in the KJ Only cult retard themselves in an archaic translation, deeming it 'perfect', thereby making it a golden calf (idol), since no translation of language from one form to another can be altogether 'perfect'. Its worshipping the form, and not the substance,....the image, and not the meaning. The Father is ever seeking those who will worship Him in spirit and truth, not according to a particular bible translation.



pj

journey
March 17th, 2015, 12:14 AM
The far out extremists in the KJ Only cult retard themselves in an archaic translation, deeming it 'perfect', thereby making it a golden calf (idol), since no translation of language from one form to another can be altogether 'perfect'. Its worshipping the form, and not the substance,....the image, and not the meaning. The Father is ever seeking those who will worship Him in spirit and truth, not according to a particular bible translation.



pj

I don't agree with you very often, but I agree with the above.

kiwimacahau
March 17th, 2015, 02:46 AM
Don't forget the fabulous New King James Version (NKJV), as we've been discussing in this thread here (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=106233). The NKJV is defended in its comparison of the old KJ here (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4179647&postcount=171).

There are also more interesting and some 'far out' there translations,...but like all things, do your own homework, study and research on all extant manuscripts. Honest investigation of any religious text, however inspired or exalted, includes no fear or manipulation, just honest research using one's own reason, intelligence, logic, and divine guidance. This goes for all religious texts, and not the Bible only, for those of us who are students of other religious traditions as well :)

It goes without saying, but "you cant put God in a box".

The far out extremists in the KJ Only cult retard themselves in an archaic translation, deeming it 'perfect', thereby making it a golden calf (idol), since no translation of language from one form to another can be altogether 'perfect'. Its worshipping the form, and not the substance,....the image, and not the meaning. The Father is ever seeking those who will worship Him in spirit and truth, not according to a particular bible translation.



pj

Indeed, indeed.

Mocking You
March 17th, 2015, 08:28 AM
You hint at the notion meanings applied in history don't necessarily correlate with meaning of that word, today.

I'm not hinting at it, I'm asserting it. "Admiration" today means 'respect and approval'. "Admiration" in 1611 meant 'wonder.' This is one of the many problems with the KJV--archaic words whose meaning have changed.


If you had the option to select another word for "admiration" for todays' reader of the KJV, to appropriately convey your perception... do you think "appalled" would convey the more appropriate connotation to today's English speaking reader? I personally think "appalled" gets closer to the negative connotation of the theme than "astonished", and certainly closer than "admired."

First off, I don't see a negative connotation with the word 'astonished'. There might be, there might not be. Secondly, we don't get to pick and choose which word we think fits our particular reading mood, we need to translate the Greek words to best fit the words that are in modern usage.



Interestingly, maybe Bibles need to be translated to better reflect cultural dialect. Should Bibles be translated with cultural flair?


Only if a particular cultural dialect is a known certainty, and translates into modern usage. Idioms are problematic. Take this verse from Amos:

Amos 4:6 And I also have given you cleanness of teeth in all your cities, and want of bread in all your places: yet have ye not returned unto me, saith the LORD. [KJV]

Amos 4:6 “I gave you empty stomachs in every city
and lack of bread in every town,
yet you have not returned to me,”
declares the LORD. [NIV]

A literal translation might be "cleanness of teeth" AND it might make sense to someone in 1611, but in today's day and age it's senseless. God supplied dental assistants with tooth whiteners in all the cities?




I suggest the translation depends more on the translator's inspired perception of the truth, than on the translators skill in both languages.

The translation ought to depend on the translator's skill and personal beliefs should not prejudice the translation one way or the other. When that happens you get crazy stuff like The Queen James Version.


Then, there's the reader's fluency in the language,

People reading the Bible should not need to know middle ages English or carry around a dictionary with archaic word definitions in it to comprehend it.

everready
March 17th, 2015, 11:57 AM
Are you on a mission Mocking You?


Do you know what the Jesuits think about the true Word of God? Here is a quote from The Jesuits in History , where he quotes from a Jesuit meeting in Cheri, Italy in 1825, and gives us shocking insight as to the Jesuits' true view of the Bible: "Then the Bible, that serpent which with head erect and eyes flashing, threatens us (the Jesuits) with its venom while it trails along the ground, shall be changed into a rod as soon as we (the Jesuits) are able to seize it…for three centuries past this cruel asp has left us no repose. You well know with what folds it entwines us and with what fangs it gnaws us." (The Jesuits in History, Hector Macpherson, Ozark Book Publishers, 1997, Appendix 1).

Based on the above quote, how do you think the Jesuits and the Catholic church feel about the thousands of revisions in the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus codices, which have given rise to the corrupted modern bible translations? They are dancing in the streets!

Is that quote not enough for you? Here are a couple of quotes directly from the Catholic Catechism:

Question: What if the Holy Scriptures command one thing, and the Pope another contrary to it?

Answer: The Holy Scriptures must be thrown aside.

Question: What is the Pope?

Answer: He is the Vicar of Christ, the King of Kings, and Lord of Lords, and there is but one Judgment-Seat belonging to God and the Pope.

I don't know about you, but if the Catholics and the Jesuits accept the NIV and the NASB as the bible, then that is a HUGE problem for me. . .

If you want to learn more about the Jesuit Order and Secret Societies, click HERE to watch a video and click HERE to read about it.

http://www.1611kingjamesbible.com/catholic_jesuits.html/

everready

Mocking You
March 17th, 2015, 12:39 PM
I don't know about you, but if the Catholics and the Jesuits accept the NIV and the NASB as the bible, then that is a HUGE problem for me

I don't know that they accept it. How do you know this?


If you want to learn more about the Jesuit Order and Secret Societies, click HERE to watch a video and click HERE to read about it.

http://www.1611kingjamesbible.com/catholic_jesuits.html/

everready

I'm not big on conspiracy theories and anyway, why would I care what the Jesuits think about the Bible?

I can play this sort of game as well. For example, did you know that the Jehovah's Witnesses Bible, the New World Translation lines up with the KJV in how it treats the Holy Spirit? In at least four places the KJV refers to the Holy Spirit as "IT", stripping the person of the Holy Spirit out of the Bible, thereby weakening the Trinity. None of the modern versions use "It" or "Itself" when referring to one of the Persons of the Trinity.

John 1:32 "And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and IT abode upon him."

Romans 8:16 "The Spirit ITSELF beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God."

Romans 8:26b "The Spirit ITSELF maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered."

I Peter 1:11 "Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify when IT testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ and the glory that should follow."

So, back at ya, everready--If the Jehovah's Witnesses Bible lines up with the KJV on the Trinity, then that's a HUGE problem for me.

WonderfulLordJesus
March 17th, 2015, 01:04 PM
I can play this sort of game as well. For example, did you know that the Jehovah's Witnesses Bible, the New World Translation lines up with the KJV in how it treats the Holy Spirit? In at least four places the KJV refers to the Holy Spirit as "IT", stripping the person of the Holy Spirit out of the Bible, thereby weakening the Trinity. None of the modern versions use "It" or "Itself" when referring to one of the Persons of the Trinity.

John 1:32 "And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and IT abode upon him."

Romans 8:16 "The Spirit ITSELF beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God."

Romans 8:26b "The Spirit ITSELF maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered."

I Peter 1:11 "Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify when IT testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ and the glory that should follow."

So, back at ya, everready--If the Jehovah's Witnesses Bible lines up with the KJV on the Trinity, then that's a HUGE problem for me.

How does using "it" strip personhood in any way, especially in light of old vernacular, linguistic constructs?

Even now, it could go like,

"Boy you look terrible!" "Yes, my body, it is really weary."

"Who's there?" "Don't worry. It is me."

Far fetched? I think not.

John 6

19 So when they had rowed about five and twenty or thirty furlongs, they see Jesus walking on the sea, and drawing nigh unto the ship: and they were afraid.
20 But he saith unto them, It is I; be not afraid.

Here, our Lord Jesus confirms His it-dom, and clearly not by any stretch of the imagination as you imply "it" must be perceived.

6days
March 17th, 2015, 01:25 PM
How does using "it" strip personhood in any way, especially in light of old vernacular, linguistic constructs?


Other translations also use words such as 'itself' in those verses and I don't think it has caused confusion.
(And...Almost unfair to called the JW Bible a translation...agree?)

WonderfulLordJesus
March 17th, 2015, 01:33 PM
(And...Almost unfair to called the JW Bible a translation...agree?)

So, you're maintaining there are no translators in hell?

Do I agree? It's a Christian forum, no old saying about bears and the woods, now...

freelight
March 17th, 2015, 01:36 PM
I don't know that they accept it. How do you know this?



I'm not big on conspiracy theories and anyway, why would I care what the Jesuits think about the Bible?

I can play this sort of game as well. For example, did you know that the Jehovah's Witnesses Bible, the New World Translation lines up with the KJV in how it treats the Holy Spirit? In at least four places the KJV refers to the Holy Spirit as "IT", stripping the person of the Holy Spirit out of the Bible, thereby weakening the Trinity. None of the modern versions use "It" or "Itself" when referring to one of the Persons of the Trinity.

John 1:32 "And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and IT abode upon him."

Romans 8:16 "The Spirit ITSELF beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God."

Romans 8:26b "The Spirit ITSELF maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered."

I Peter 1:11 "Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify when IT testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ and the glory that should follow."

So, back at ya, everready--If the Jehovah's Witnesses Bible lines up with the KJV on the Trinity, then that's a HUGE problem for me.

I don't see a problem with calling the Spirit an 'it' if the rules of grammatical construct allows for it within the context, allowing for a proper interpretation of such within 'context'. The whole issue and emphasis on the 'personality' of the Holy Spirit is more complex, since 'God' also what is 'non-personal' since within the total of creation, there are both 'personal' and more or less 'non-personal' elements of His essence and form thru-out the cosmos, in both substance and form. 'Personality' itself is one of those unique things inherent within consciousness as a complex integrating dynamic which gives qualities and attributes to a particular soul or entity, enabling 'it' to relate to other personalities on various levels and so forth.

A Unitarian could just as well personalize or non-personalize the Spirit, depending on how the Spirit is relating itself to others. God is Spirit. This 'Spirit' does include 'personality', of course,....but the Infinite also transcends human definitions or comprehension of 'personhood', let alone the rest of the cosmos which is non-personal. When one is in rapture in the Holy Spirit, its an experience that may be happening on all levels, within the personality and beyond it,....as all-inclusive.

Insistence that the Holy Spirit is a person, to prefit its position in a company of persons, well,...that logic holds only within the context of such a 'company'. Otherwise, the Spirit as an active force, influencing power, all-pervading presence, is just that, and is not limited to being 'personal'.



pj

Mocking You
March 17th, 2015, 01:46 PM
How does using "it" strip personhood in any way, especially in light of old vernacular, linguistic constructs?

"It" is a thing, an object. "It" is not a personal pronoun. It's a mistranslation, pure and simple.



John 6

19 So when they had rowed about five and twenty or thirty furlongs, they see Jesus walking on the sea, and drawing nigh unto the ship: and they were afraid.
20 But he saith unto them, It is I; be not afraid.

Here, our Lord Jesus confirms His it-dom, and clearly not by any stretch of the imagination as you imply "it" must be perceived.

No, He calls himself "I". "I" is a personal pronoun.

Mocking You
March 17th, 2015, 01:48 PM
I don't see a problem with calling the Spirit an 'it' if the rules of grammatical construct allows for it within the context, allowing for a proper interpretation of such within 'context'.


It doesn't allow it.

Mocking You
March 17th, 2015, 01:55 PM
Other translations also use words such as 'itself' in those verses and I don't think it has caused confusion.
(And...Almost unfair to called the JW Bible a translation...agree?)

Two other versions do--the RSV and the NRSV, in John 1:32 and 1 Peter 1:11; and the NRSV in Romans 8:16and in Romans 8:32.

The New King James Bible, the English Standard Bible, the New American Standard Bible, the Holman Christian Standard Bible, the New International Version, the Living Bible, the New Living Translation, the Contemporary English Version, Today's English Version, the New English Bible, Moffat's translation, the Common English Bible, etc. etc. etc. DO NOT USE "IT" when referring to the Holy Spirit.

It's a uniquely KJV and NWT issue.

everready
March 17th, 2015, 02:04 PM
I don't know that they accept it. How do you know this?



I'm not big on conspiracy theories and anyway, why would I care what the Jesuits think about the Bible?

I can play this sort of game as well. For example, did you know that the Jehovah's Witnesses Bible, the New World Translation lines up with the KJV in how it treats the Holy Spirit? In at least four places the KJV refers to the Holy Spirit as "IT", stripping the person of the Holy Spirit out of the Bible, thereby weakening the Trinity. None of the modern versions use "It" or "Itself" when referring to one of the Persons of the Trinity.

John 1:32 "And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and IT abode upon him."

Romans 8:16 "The Spirit ITSELF beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God."

Romans 8:26b "The Spirit ITSELF maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered."

I Peter 1:11 "Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify when IT testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ and the glory that should follow."

So, back at ya, everready--If the Jehovah's Witnesses Bible lines up with the KJV on the Trinity, then that's a HUGE problem for me.

Then you don't know who the Jesuits are and their main goal? To destroy Protestantism to destroy any and all references in Gods word concerning Antichrist. When the world discovered the Antichrist in the Vatican all bets were off, the papacy was exposed by scripture, people could finally read for themselves, this campaign to rewrite the bible has been going on for quite a spell and now as the end of all thinks approaches the campaign has gone to another level "A Jesuit pope"

everready

Mocking You
March 17th, 2015, 02:45 PM
Then you don't know who the Jesuits are and their main goal? To destroy Protestantism to destroy any and all references in Gods word concerning Antichrist. When the world discovered the Antichrist in the Vatican all bets were off, the papacy was exposed by scripture, people could finally read for themselves, this campaign to rewrite the bible has been going on for quite a spell and now as the end of all thinks approaches the campaign has gone to another level "A Jesuit pope"

everready

Did Jesuits translate the NIV? No. So stop banging on about the Jesuits. Stick to the topic.

everready
March 17th, 2015, 02:54 PM
Did Jesuits translate the NIV? No. So stop banging on about the Jesuits. Stick to the topic.

Then i was right you don't know who the Jesuits are because that's what this topic is about them attacking the bible as we know it, to get it to say what they want it to say.. maybe a brief history of their movements will help.

In working to stamp out Protestantism, the Jesuits used two primary tactics. Politically, once they exercised influence over the ruler, or rulers, of a country, they drove them to persecute the Protestants; and religiously, they actually infiltrated the Protestant churches and denominations, and worked to undermine them from within.

Their Plots against English Protestantism: 16th and 17th Centuries
Just a few short years after the founding of the Order, the Jesuits had established seminaries on the continent of Europe for the purpose of training young English noblemen as Roman Catholic missionaries. These men, when their training was complete, were sent back to Britain as traitors, to once again subjugate the land to the pope of Rome. In 1551, the Council of Trent sent secret instructions to the Jesuits of Paris on how to undermine and destroy the “Church of England”.

A copy, accidentally dropped by a Jesuit priest in a pulpit in 1568, was found. The instructions were these: “Ye are not to preach all after one method but observe the place wherein you come. If Lutheranism be prevalent, then preach Calvinism; if Calvinism, then Lutheranism; if in England, then either of them, or John Huss’ opinions, Anabaptism, or any that are contrary to the Holy See of St. Peter, by which your function will not be suspected, and yet you may still act on the interest of Mother Church; there being, as the Council are agreed on, no better way to demolish that Church (the Church of England) of heresy, but by mixture of doctrines, and by adding of ceremonies more than at present permitted.

Some of you who undertook to be of this sort of Heretical Episcopal Society, bring it as near to the Mother Church as you can; for then the Lutheran party, the Calvinists, the Anabaptists and other heretics, will be averse thereto, and thereby make the Episcopal heresy odious to all these, and be a means to reduce all in time to Mother Church.”

http://www.thebibleistheotherside.org/newsitem25.htm

everready

6days
March 17th, 2015, 03:17 PM
So, you're maintaining there are no translators in hell?

Do I agree? It's a Christian forum, no old saying about bears and the woods, now...
Sorry...I'm a bit thick and don't understand your point. I'm saying the JW Bible is not a true translation.... but you disagree with me?

6days
March 17th, 2015, 03:37 PM
DO NOT USE "IT"*when referring to the Holy Spirit.

I agree with you.

But, I don't think there is any intent on theological spin when "it" is used in the KJV or other translations.


International Standard Version
John also testified, "I saw the Spirit coming down from heaven like a dove, and it remained on him.*

NET Bible
Then John testified, "I saw the Spirit descending like a dove from heaven, and it remained on him.

Jubilee Bible 2000
And John gave testimony, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him.

King James 2000 Bible
And John bore record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him.


American Standard Version
And John bare witness, saying, I have beheld the Spirit descending as a dove out of heaven; and it abode upon him.

Darby Bible Translation
And John bore witness, saying, I beheld the Spirit descending as a dove from heaven, and it abode upon him.

English Revised Version
And John bare witness, saying, I have beheld the Spirit descending as a dove out of heaven; and it abode upon him.

Webster's Bible Translation
And John bore testimony, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him.

Weymouth New Testament
John also gave testimony by stating: "I have seen the Spirit coming down like a dove out of Heaven; and it remained upon Him.

Young's Literal Translation
And John testified, saying -- 'I have seen the Spirit coming down, as a dove, out of heaven, and it remained on him;

Mocking You
March 17th, 2015, 03:41 PM
Then i was right you don't know who the Jesuits are because that's what this topic is about them attacking the bible as we know it, to get it to say what they want it to say.. maybe a brief history of their movements will help.

<snip stuff>

everready

non sequitur.

BTW, the Douay-Rheims 1899 Bible (Catholic Bible) uses "He" for the Holy Spirit.

Mocking You
March 17th, 2015, 03:44 PM
I agree with you.

But, I don't think there is any intent on theological spin when "it" is used in the KJV or other translations.

I don't think so either. My point is that a tenuous argument could be made linking the NWT to the KJV, just as everready was attempting to link the Jesuits to Bible translations (where did that come from, BTW?)

Do all these other translations go a perfect 4 for 4 using "It" in the four verses I listed?

WonderfulLordJesus
March 17th, 2015, 03:55 PM
Sorry...I'm a bit thick and don't understand your point. I'm saying the JW Bible is not a true translation.... but you disagree with me?

No. I don't disagree with you. Yes. I do agree with you. There's no maybe about my agreeing with you.

There. Was that every permutation? But if, in the revered TOL tradition, you want to fight about it, I've had more time on my hands lately, and I'll disagree with you.

WonderfulLordJesus
March 17th, 2015, 03:58 PM
non sequitur.

BTW, the Douay-Rheims 1899 Bible (Catholic Bible) uses "He" for the Holy Spirit.

You just can't get over it.

Mocking You
March 17th, 2015, 04:25 PM
You just can't get over it.

This is important stuff. Referring to a person of the Trinity, the one who dwells inside each believer as an impersonal "it" borders on blasphemy, IMO. I wouldn't let it go by so lightly.

Let's say the KJV used the word "He" for the Holy Spirit and the modern translations used "it" in those verses. You can be sure the KJVO crowd would be screaming invectives from the rooftops.

WonderfulLordJesus
March 17th, 2015, 04:46 PM
This is important stuff. Referring to a person of the Trinity, the one who dwells inside each believer as an impersonal "it" borders on blasphemy, IMO. I wouldn't let it go by so lightly.

Let's say the KJV used the word "He" for the Holy Spirit and the modern translations used "it" in those verses. You can be sure the KJVO crowd would be screaming invectives from the rooftops.

Don't mean to sidetrack the critical issues of the day, but would those be Spirit-filled invectives, screamed from rooftops? I sincerely try to understand what goes on around here, but I'm mired in trying to understand why the Catholics are still fighting the Reformation, much less have any handle on holiness bickering. I try targeting the outrageously egregious things, though don't get all excited, try dishing some out, but, more often that not, feel sinful to agree with some people. Anyway, I'll not detain anybody further from the battlefield.

Daniel1611
March 17th, 2015, 06:45 PM
Catholic like the NIV because it is constructed to support false Catholic doctrines. Why anyone uses a garbage translation made by a bunch of homos and other nonbelievers is beyond me.

kiwimacahau
March 17th, 2015, 06:49 PM
Aha, more lies, more poisoning the well. Par for the course for KJV-Onlyists.

Daniel1611
March 17th, 2015, 06:54 PM
Aha, more lies, more poisoning the well. Par for the course for KJV-Onlyists.

The NIV users have yet to give ONE area where the NIV is superior to the KJV. The NIV's source documents are literal garbage. The NIV's translators were homos and unbelievers who look like uneducated hicks next to the KJV translators. Catholics and other unsaved phonies like the NIV because it supports their false doctrines. The NIV belongs in the trash like Codex Sinaiitcus was.

kiwimacahau
March 17th, 2015, 08:00 PM
Codex Sinaiticus was not found in the garbage; there was one lesbian, Virginia Mollenkott, on the NIV team and she did not work on the translation but was an English Stylist. Catholics do not use the NIV, preferring either the Douay-Rheims or the Jerusalem ; New Jerusalem or the RSV.

Mocking You
March 17th, 2015, 08:11 PM
Catholic like the NIV because it is constructed to support false Catholic doctrines. Why anyone uses a garbage translation made by a bunch of homos and other nonbelievers is beyond me.

Catholics like the 1611 KJV because it contained the Roman Catholic Apocrypha. There is a page at the front of the 1611 KJV dedicated to the "blessed virgin."

King James himself was a homosexual. Whaddya think about that?

Mocking You
March 17th, 2015, 08:14 PM
The NIV users have yet to give ONE area where the NIV is superior to the KJV.

Oh, I think we've already done so. That's why the name calling has started.

But what are you looking for?

Ease of reading?
Superior translation into modern day English language?
Verses translated so as to better support fundamental doctrinal beliefs?

Take your pick. I'll give you examples.

journey
March 18th, 2015, 12:42 AM
Catholics like the 1611 KJV because it contained the Roman Catholic Apocrypha. There is a page at the front of the 1611 KJV dedicated to the "blessed virgin."

King James himself was a homosexual. Whaddya think about that?

You are correct.

everready
March 18th, 2015, 09:23 AM
Catholics like the 1611 KJV because it contained the Roman Catholic Apocrypha. There is a page at the front of the 1611 KJV dedicated to the "blessed virgin."

King James himself was a homosexual. Whaddya think about that?

i think you choose to believe he was a homosexual, Christians come under fire all of the time, they accused Jesus of things worse than that do you believe those accusations?

everready

Mocking You
March 18th, 2015, 09:30 AM
i think you choose to believe he was a homosexual, Christians come under fire all of the time, they accused Jesus of things worse than that do you believe those accusations?

everready

King James himself wrote love letters to his gay lovers. These letters are in British museums. Anyone can go look at them. An English professor has written a book about them. It's not a matter of believing accusations because King James indicts himself with his own writings!

http://www.amazon.com/King-James-Letters-Homoerotic-Desire/dp/0877456690/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1426692582&sr=8-2&keywords=love+letters+of+king+james

everready
March 18th, 2015, 09:38 AM
King James himself wrote love letters to his gay lovers. These letters are in British museums. Anyone can go look at them. An English professor has written a book about them. It's not a matter of believing accusations because King James indicts himself with his own writings!

http://www.amazon.com/King-James-Letters-Homoerotic-Desire/dp/0877456690/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1426692582&sr=8-2&keywords=love+letters+of+king+james

According to Dr. Samuel C. Gipp, Th.D., in his scholarly work, The Answer Book, he answers the question, "Was king James a homosexual?"...

No. King James I of England, who authorized the translation of the now famous King James Bible, was considered by many to be one of the greatest, if not the greatest, monarchs that England has ever seen.

Through his wisdom and determination he united the warring tribes of Scotland into a unified nation, and then joined England and Scotland to form the foundation for what is now known as the British Empire.

At a time when only the churches of England possessed the Bible in English, King James' desire was that the common people should have the Bible in their native tongue. Thus, in 1603, King James called 54 of history's most learned men together to accomplish this great task. At a time when the leaders of the world wished to keep their subjects in spiritual ignorance, King James offered his subjects the greatest gift that he could give them. Their own copy of the Word of God in English.

James, who was fluent in Latin, Greek, and French, and schooled in Italian and Spanish even wrote a tract entitled "Counterblast to Tobacco",which was written to help thwart the use of tobacco in England.

Such a man was sure to have enemies. One such man, Anthony Weldon, had to be excluded from the court. Weldon swore vengeance. It was not until 1650, twenty-five years after the death of James that Weldon saw his chance. He wrote a paper calling James a homosexual. Obviously, James, being dead, was in no condition to defend himself.

http://samgipp.com/answerbook/


everready

Mocking You
March 18th, 2015, 10:19 AM
According to Dr. Samuel C. Gipp, Th.D., in his scholarly work, The Answer Book, he answers the question, "Was king James a homosexual?"...

No.


everready

This is simply a fanciful story about one man that accused King James of being a homosexual, that Sam Gipp asserts is not true. We don't need stories from other people.

King James himself wrote love letters to his gay lovers. These letters are in British museums. Anyone can go look at them. It's not a matter of believing accusations because King James indicts himself with his own writings!

WonderfulLordJesus
March 18th, 2015, 10:26 AM
This is simply a fanciful story about one man that accused King James of being a homosexual, that Sam Gipp asserts is not true. We don't need stories from other people.

King James himself wrote love letters to his gay lovers. These letters are in British museums. Anyone can go look at them. It's not a matter of believing accusations because King James indicts himself with his own writings!

It also is irrelevant, true or false. Did King James do any of the translating? Further, were any of the translators without sin? Is there anything useful in this line of thought, at all? Think I'll go back to the Liberace thread. At least there you can have a little fun.

Nazaroo
March 18th, 2015, 11:09 AM
This is simply a fanciful story about one man that accused King James of being a homosexual, that Sam Gipp asserts is not true. We don't need stories from other people.

King James himself wrote love letters to his gay lovers. These letters are in British museums. Anyone can go look at them. It's not a matter of believing accusations because King James indicts himself with his own writings!

It has to be asked:

Who would be obsessed with proving King James to be a homosexual?

Who would gain by convincing people that King James was gay?

A faggot.

Nazaroo
March 18th, 2015, 11:15 AM
I don't think so either. My point is that a tenuous argument could be made linking the NWT to the KJV, ...


...just as you are attempting to link King James with homos.




just as everready was attempting to link the Jesuits to Bible translations (where did that come from, BTW?)
It comes from the fact that all modern translations have been sponsored
and then quietly had their copyrights bought up by the mysterious Lockmann Foundation,
a freemasonic front owned by the Jesuits.

http://www.lockman.org/

Thats right: All those 'competing' modern Bibles are owned and copyrighted
by the same group of cultists.


he NASB was published in the following stages

Gospel of John (1960)
The Gospels (1962)
New Testament (1963)
Psalms (1968)
Complete Bible, Old and New Testaments (1971)
Modified Editions (1972, 1973, 1975, 1977)
Updated Edition (NASU: 1995)

Copyright and trademark to the NASB text are owned by the Lockman Foundation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockman_Foundation).[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_American_Standard_Bible#cite_note-Copyright-2)

Amplified Bible (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amplified_Bible) and other Biblical resources.

Copyright and trademark to the text are owned by the Lockman Foundation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockman_Foundation).[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_American_Standard_Bible#cite_note-Copyright-2)

Blue Letter Bible -

Copyright and trademark to the text are owned by the Lockman Foundation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockman_Foundation).[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_American_Standard_Bible#cite_note-Copyright-2)


Living Bible -

Copyright and trademark to the text are owned by the Lockman Foundation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockman_Foundation).[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_American_Standard_Bible#cite_note-Copyright-2)


NIV -

Copyright and trademark to the text are owned by the Lockman Foundation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockman_Foundation).[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_American_Standard_Bible#cite_note-Copyright-2)



Smell a conspiracy yet?


Abbreviation Name Date RV (British) Revised Version (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revised_Version) 1881–5 ASV American Standard Version (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Standard_Version) 1901 RSV Revised Standard Version (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revised_Standard_Version) 1952, 1971 NASB New American Standard Bible (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_American_Standard_Bible) 1971, 1995 NRSV New Revised Standard Version (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Revised_Standard_Version) 1989 ESV English Standard Version (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Standard_Version) 2001, 2007, 2011 WEB World English Bible (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_English_Bible) In progress REV Revised English Version (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Revised_English_Version&action=edit&redlink=1)[14] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_English_Bible_translations#cite_note-14) In progress

copyright - the Lockmann Foundation

Mocking You
March 18th, 2015, 11:26 AM
It has to be asked:

Who would be obsessed with proving King James to be a homosexual?

Who would gain by convincing people that King James was gay?

A faggot.

Killfile. You're on Ignore.

Mocking You
March 18th, 2015, 11:30 AM
It also is irrelevant, true or false. Did King James do any of the translating? Further, were any of the translators without sin? Is there anything useful in this line of thought, at all?

I'm merely responding to people that say the NIV was translated by homos by pointing out their beloved KJV Bible was commissioned by a homosexual. If they are going to impugn the NIV because one of the English sylists (not a translator) was gay, then they need to confront the hypocrisy of backing a translation that was commissioned by a homosexual.

WonderfulLordJesus
March 18th, 2015, 11:45 AM
I'm merely responding to people that say the NIV was translated by homos by pointing out their beloved KJV Bible was commissioned by a homosexual. If they are going to impugn the NIV because one of the English sylists (not a translator) was gay, then they need to confront the hypocrisy of backing a translation that was commissioned by a homosexual.

True. It's a nonsensical argument, in any regard, so why pursue it? If people want to judge for themselves, Google comparisons between the KJV and the NIV, look at verses very much altered, then decide if the Bible whipped-up in the 1970's is for you, as opposed to an NASB, then, or ASV, decide for themselves if there are, truly, translations of lesser evil. Though not in any cult, I will keep my King James, thank you, and the more some people disparage it, the more it looks like some people protesteth too much. Of course, that can't be so, on TOL. Whatever the case, again, don't listen to me or anybody, look at a critical comparison of other Bible translations versus the King James and decide for yourself. You will find some things painfully obvious. Always do your own homework.

No time now to address this, but there is much on TOL that serves to tear at and impugn things of God, this clear to anybody with Spiritual eyes to see, some things said in the name of Christ that wouldn't leave the lips of a Christian, irreverence that even tries to cast a shadow on God. It's near thematic around here. Folks, buyer beware!

Nazaroo
March 18th, 2015, 12:18 PM
THE HOLY BIBLE, NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION®, NIV® Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984, 2011 by Biblica, Inc.™ Used by permission. All rights reserved worldwide.



Who is "Biblica, Inc." ???


Turns out they are actually these people:

The International Bible Society (IBS) was headquartered in Colorado Springs, Colorado, a nonprofit Christian organization that translates, publishes, and distributes the Christian Bible and other resources through ministry, retail, and distribution channels. The IBS was founded in New York in 1809 as the New York Bible Society and changed its name to the International Bible Society in 1983.[1]


Merger and name change

In March 2007, IBS merged with Send the Light (STL), a UK-based, Christian-resources distribution organization established in 1957 by Operation Mobilization founder George Verwer. STL has become one of the largest distributors of Christian resources, with distribution centers in the UK, India, and the U.S. STL also has retail operations in various parts of the world. The combined organization was named IBS-STL until 2009, when the more descriptive name Biblica was chosen to represent the global organization and reflect its emphasis on the Bible.


Thus, virtually all modern English versions are either copyrighted by

(1) The Lockmann Foundation (California), or

(2) Biblica (New York).


The real English Bible remains the copyright of the British Crown.

Various updates of the KJV have been done in the Commonwealth and USA,
and those copyrights are held either by Nelson Publishing (US), or
individuals.


Large amounts of Roman Catholic money has flowed into these 'foundations',
largely to secure some control over and modification of the Bible text
to support ROMAN CATHOLIC Doctrine.

If you doubt this, we need only remind the reader that virtually all
modern translations of the New Testament are based on the UBS text,
(United Bible Societies), which in turn is a special edition of the NESTLE text (dumbed down further).

The chairman / Chief Editor of the UBS text was....

Cardinal Martini of the Roman Catholic Church.


the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece 27th ... It is the same Greek text as the UBS (United Bible Society) 4th edition. These are the Greek readings and texts that are followed by such modern versions as the ESV, NIV, NASB, Holman Standard AND the new Catholic versions like the St. Joseph New American Bible 1970 and the New Jerusalem bible 1985. If you have a copy of the Nestle-Aland 27th edition, open the book and read what they tell us in their own words on page 45 of the Introduction. Here these critical Greek text editors tell us about how the Greek New Testament (GNT, now known as the UBS) and the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece grew together and shared the same basic text.In the last paragraph on page 45 we read these words:



"The text shared by these two editions was adopted internationally by Bible Societies, and FOLLOWING AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE VATICANAND THE UNITED BIBLE SOCIETIES IT HAS SERVED AS THE BASIS FOR NEW TRANSLATIONS AND FOR REVISIONS MADE UNDER THEIR SUPERVISION. THIS MARKS A SIGNIFICANT STEP WITH REGARD TO INTERCONFESSIONAL RELATIONSHIPS. It should naturally be understood that this text is a working text: it is not to be considered as definitive, but as a stimulus to further efforts toward defining and verifying the text of the New Testament."


...
Guess why the UBS (United Bible Society) Greek texts are the basis for all these new versions? It's because Catholics and Evangelicals were united to produce this text. One of the 5 chief editors was the Jesuit Cardinal Carlos Martini,who believed god was in all men and in all religions.


Just open a copy of the UBS New Testament Greek and turn to the first page. There you will see a list of the 5 chief editors who put this abomination together. The 4th name on the list, right before the inerrancy denying Bruce Metzger, is Carlo M. Martini.

In his book "In the Thick of His Ministry" the Jesuit Cardinal Martini writes: “The deification which is the aim of all religious life takes place. During a recent trip to India I was struck by the yearning for the divine that pervades the whole of Hindu culture. It gives rise to extraordinary religious forms and extremely meaningful prayers. I wondered: What is authentic in this longing to fuse with the divine dominating the spirituality of hundreds of millions of human beings, so that they bear hardship, privation, exhausting pilgrimages, in search of this ecstasy?" (In The Thick Of His Ministry, Carlo M. Martini, page 42.)

Jesuit Cardinal Martini served on the editorial committee for the United Bible Societies' 2nd, 3rd and 4th editions. These are the "bibles" most modern Christians are using today when they pick up the ESV, NIV, NASB, NET or modern Catholic "bibles".

The United Bible Society has been directly associated with apostate Unitarians, who deny the deity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the Roman Catholic Church from the very beginning and even more so today. See 4 pages of documentation that prove this beyond all possible doubt.

The True Colors of the United Bible Society

http://prophets-see-all.tripod.com/46645.htm
http://prophets-see-all.tripod.com/46646.htm
http://prophets-see-all.tripod.com/46647.htm
http://prophets-see-all.tripod.com/46648.htm

Mocking You
March 18th, 2015, 12:32 PM
True. It's a nonsensical argument, in any regard, so why pursue it?

To complain that the NIV is tainted because a lesser staff person (not a translator) was gay without acknowledging that the person responsible for creation of the KJV was gay, is hypocrisy. It's "why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?"


If people want to judge for themselves, Google comparisons between the KJV and the NIV, look at verses very much altered,

And herein is part of the problem. Who says the KJV is the gold standard whereby all other translations have been "altered"? They use two differing source manuscripts, of course they are going to have minor variations.


then decide if the Bible whipped-up in the 1970's is for you,

Here is another problem. Disparaging a version because it was recently translated. If you want a Bible to be readable in today's English it's going to need to be recently translated! It only makes sense.


as opposed to an NASB, then, or ASV, decide for themselves if there are, truly, translations of lesser evil.

Yep, problem again. The KJV is the one and only translation; all others are evil.


Though not in any cult, I will keep my King James, thank you, and the more some people disparage it, the more it looks like some people protesteth too much.

And I'm glad you like the KJV. However, no one profits from disparaging and denigrating other translations as if the KJV is spotless. It isn't.


Whatever the case, again, don't listen to me or anybody, look at a critical comparison Bible translations versus the King James and decide for yourself. You will find some things painfully obvious. Always do your own homework.

Oh, I have done my own homework. I have a KJV/NIV parallel Bible with both translations of each verse side-by-side. That is how I came to find the shortcomings of the KJV.