PDA

View Full Version : Don't Confuse "the Word of God" with "the word of God" *



brandplucked
November 5th, 2015, 02:38 PM
Don't Confuse "the Word of God" with "the word of God" *

Bible agnostics ( a = not + gnostic = to know) who do not know for sure what God may or may not have said in literally hundreds of different places in the same verses of todays Bible Babble Buffet versions on the market often confuse these two Biblical terms - "the Word of God" and "the word of God". *

I have seen this so many times that I finally decided to write an article about it so I can repost it instead of having to type out the same response again and again.

Note - If you think you believe in the inerrancy of the Bible and are not a bible agnostic, then take The Bible Agnostic Test and see if you know for sure what God wrote in His Book.

See "The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy = just more Evangelical mumbo jumbo signifying nothing"

http://brandplucked.webs.com/chicagostate.htm*

And if you think (as many affirm) that no doctrines are changed, then see Fake Bible Versions DO teach false doctrines - Links to examples

http://brandplucked.webs.com/fakebiblesdoctrine.htm*

*One such bible agnostic and unbeliever in the inerrancy of ANY Bible in any language recently posted the following:*

*"Where do you get the thought that the Word of God is a "real, tangible, in print, hold it in your hands and read, Book"? This is why KJV Only people can not have a logical discussion on the matter.* For you it must be a single hard copy book. The reality is that God gave us His very Word in other languages than English, this necessitates either learning Greek and Hebrew (I have studied Hebrew myself for 10 years and hope to start Greek soon) OR translating the original languages into our language." [End of comments]

*

There is so much muddle headed thinking in this man's statement that it is tough to know where to begin addressing his points.* First of all "the Word of God" is NOT the same as "the word of God".* The title "the Word" is found in the King James Bible 7 times; only 6 times in most modern Vatican Versions like the ESV, NIV, NASB, NET, Holman, etc.


*It is found in John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

John 1:14 "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us..."

1 John 1:1 "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life."

1 John 5:7 "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."

Revelation 19:13 "And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God."

The term "the Word" with a capital W refers to the Lord Jesus Christ, the Second Person of the blessed Trinity. The Word existed from eternity, was incarnated as the Son of man/Son of God, lived a perfect life for 33 years on this earth, He gave us the words His Father had given him, was crucified on a cross at Calvary where He bore the sins of His people and paid for them with His own shed blood, rose from the dead three days later and ascended into heaven where He now sits at the right hand of God the Father. And He is coming again in power and glory to raise His redeemed saints from the dead and to set up His kingdom on this earth.

*
But "the word of God" did none of these things and is not a Person.* The "word of God" is His inspired, written revelation of both Who this Word of God is and what He did to redeem His people. And contrary to what our Bible critic said, it IS a real, tangible, hard copy Book you can actually hold in your hands, read and believe is the very words of the living God.

The written words of God tell us of our desperate need for a Saviour from sin, hell and damnation.* They also record Gods' dealings with His people and the surrounding nations during their long history and it tells us many things about future events. We know NOTHING about Who the Word of God is or what He did for us, apart from the written word of God; nothing.

Now, let's address a couple of other things this shallow thinking bible agnostic said in his post.* He stated "The reality is that God gave us His very Word in other languages than English, this necessitates either learning Greek and Hebrew."*

*
This man is a very confused individual. First of all, the Word is the Lord Jesus Christ and He is not a language like English or any other language. He is a Person revealed to us by means of God's written words in many languages.* I agree that the gospel (the written revelation of the saving grace of God through our Lord Jesus Christ) is found in ANY bible version out there, no matter how corrupt it may be in many other ways. *

God can and does use any bible version to bring His people to faith in the Saviour - the Word of God.* But nobody seriously believes that versions like the ESV, NIV, NASB, NKJV, NET, Holman Standard etc. are the complete and inerrant words of God. Nobody, not even the people who keep churning them out one after another.

Secondly, this man who has NO complete and inerrant Bible in ANY language (and he knows he doesn't) now tells us that we need to learn Greek and Hebrew.* It seems that "The Blatantly Obvious" needs to be pointed out to these people over and over again, and hopefully, it will finally get through to them.*
*
THERE ARE NO "original autographs”. They do not exist and everybody knows that.* When Bible agnostics refer to "the" Hebrew and "the" Greek, they always fail to mention WHICH "the" Hebrew and "the" Greek they are referring to.

The Vatican Versions like the ESV, NIV, NASB, NET etc. often reject the clear Hebrew readings, and not even in the same places. If you look at the footnotes in versions like the NIV or ESV you will see note after note telling us things like "Some Hebrew mss. read...." or "One Hebrew mss. reads...." or "Most Hebrew mss. read...." or "The meaning of the Hebrew is uncertain."*

And when we come to "the Greek" their case really begins to fall apart.* There are at least 30 different "the" Greek texts out there like those of Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, Elziever, Westcott-Hort, the ever changing UBS/Nestle-Aland (now in its 28th edition and working on their 29th), Tischendorf, von Soden, Vogels, Merk, Bover or the Hodges - Farstad or perhaps the Robinson - Pierpoint Majority Texts - take your pick.* And none of them agree with each other, and several of them disagree by literally THOUSANDS OF WORDS.
*
It should also be pointed out that both the ancient biblical Hebrew and the biblical Greek are themselves archaic languages written in a form that is NOT spoken today in either Israel or Greece; the Hebrew speaking Jews and the native Greek speakers can understand them, but they do not speak or write that way today.

You will have to learn an entire new alphabet and language just to get half way proficient. They are also A LOT harder to understand that anything you are going to find in the English text of the Authorized King James Bible, and you are STILL going to end up with NO complete and inerrant Bible to believe in!

Do these bible agnostics ever bother to think their position through and follow the logic of where there arguments will lead them?* It seems they do not.

Only God knows for sure which readings, names, numbers, phrases and entire verses are the ones He originally inspired to be in His Book and only God can work in history to bring about the publication and printing of His written words in this book we call the Bible. *

We believe He has done this and can tell anyone where to get a copy of it for themselves. The bible agnostics and the "we need to learn Hebrew and Greek" promoters do not believe such a Book exists and certainly cannot tell you where to get one.

My advice, along with thousands of other born again, blood bought saints of God, is this - Get yourself a copy of the King James Holy Bible. It is the only one that has stood the test of time and that God has clearly set His marks of approval on as being His complete, inspired and inerrant "word of God" which tells us the whole truth about "the Word of God." *

All of grace, believing the Book - the Authorized King James Holy Bible.* Don't settle for an inferior substitute. *

Will Kinney *

For further thoughts on this topic, may I recommend the article showing many "coincidences" of history where God clearly sets His mark of approval on the King James Bible. It is called "God's Persistent Witness to the Absolute Standard of Written Truth = the King James Holy Bible."

http://brandplucked.webs.com/absolutestandard.htm*

*

Return to Articles - http://brandplucked.webs.com/kjbarticles.htm

*

chair
November 5th, 2015, 03:19 PM
Welcome back! I see you're still wasting time on this nonsense. But nice to see you around.

oatmeal
November 5th, 2015, 04:14 PM
Since the uncial manuscripts were written in all capital letters, then using small letters and leaving some capitalized is private interpretation.

II Peter 1:20 tells us that no prophecy of the scriptures is of any private interpretation, thus we should not be using small letters at all, except that our language allows it.

By whose authority is word capitalized in some passages and in other passages it is not?

Robert Pate
November 5th, 2015, 05:01 PM
I agree that Jesus is the word of God.

The Bible is the word of God only in a secondary sense. It is a witness to the true word of God.

I also agree that the KJV is the only Bible that anyone should read.

Good post.

brandplucked
November 5th, 2015, 05:04 PM
I agree that Jesus is the word of God.

The Bible is the word of God only in a secondary sense. It is a witness to the true word of God.

I also agree that the KJV is the only Bible that anyone should read.

Good post.

Thank you, Robert.

God bless,

brandplucked
November 5th, 2015, 05:07 PM
Since the uncial manuscripts were written in all capital letters, then using small letters and leaving some capitalized is private interpretation.

II Peter 1:20 tells us that no prophecy of the scriptures is of any private interpretation, thus we should not be using small letters at all, except that our language allows it.

By whose authority is word capitalized in some passages and in other passages it is not?

Oatmeal, you do not use or read either the uncials or the cursives. You certainly do not use them to preach or teach with, and you didn't post them here.

The fact remains that you (like most Christians today) do not believe that any bible in any language is now or ever was the inerrant words of God. And like most, you are probably too dishonest to admit it.

May God graciously open your eyes to the absolute truth of the English text of the King James Bible.

glorydaz
November 5th, 2015, 06:24 PM
Great OP post and well done. :thumb:

brandplucked
November 5th, 2015, 07:22 PM
Thank you, glorydaz. God's book is amazing. What a treasure we have.

"Accepted in the beloved" - Eph. 1:6

oatmeal
November 5th, 2015, 07:30 PM
Oatmeal, you do not use or read either the uncials or the cursives. You certainly do not use them to preach or teach with, and you didn't post them here.

The fact remains that you (like most Christians today) do not believe that any bible in any language is now or ever was the inerrant words of God. And like most, you are probably too dishonest to admit it.

May God graciously open your eyes to the absolute truth of the English text of the King James Bible.

It is astounding that you know almost nothing about me, yet you accuse me of


you (like most Christians today) do not believe that any bible in any language is now or ever was the inerrant words of God.

When was Jesus buried? when did God raise him from the dead?

How many wise men visited the newborn Jesus in the manger in the stable?

How many of each kind of animal was Noah told to gather up?

Who made Jesus both Lord and Christ?

Who is the one mediator between God and men?

brandplucked
November 5th, 2015, 07:36 PM
Quote:
you (like most Christians today) do not believe that any bible in any language is now or ever was the inerrant words of God.




It is astounding that you know almost nothing about me, yet you accuse me of

Oatmeal, I did not say you are not a Christian. I said you do not believe in an inerrant Bible. Now, if you think I am wrong about this (and I could be), then tell us exactly which one it is.

And if you say it is the KJB, then are versions like the ESV, NKJV, NIV, NASB, NET, etc. also the inerrant words of God? Yes or No?

Please answer the question. Most bible agnostics like Bob Enyart and Will Duffy just dodge the question, or give us some big song and dance routine without ever answering the question.

God bless.

jamie
November 5th, 2015, 08:48 PM
How many wise men visited the newborn Jesus in the manger in the stable?


None.

Danoh
November 5th, 2015, 09:21 PM
Thank you, Robert.

God bless,

At the same time, brother; you let him to "get away with" saying that "Jesus is the word" lower case w) of God."

Too many from one side of any fence on TOL do that kind of a thing; they allow their own the leeway they refuse anyone they disagree with.

By the way, the phrase "the word of God" often refers to the preaching, as in the Apostle Paul's case; who was laying out new, not yet written down, ground.

Where, for example, is "the word of God" as to the Pre-Trib Rapture we hold to (if you do also, that is, as I don't know all your beliefs) he relates having taught the Thessalonians of Acts 17 - where is it in the OT?

Its not - it was new ground, and yet he writes, in 1 Thessalonians 2:

13. 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.

Thus, the preaching before the writing, was also "the word of God," as one aspect of the effectual working he is referring to is our Blessed Hope, 1 Thess. 4.

For what its worth; I do appreciate your passion for the cause more than might appear the case.

daqq
November 5th, 2015, 09:27 PM
May God graciously open your eyes to the absolute truth of the English text of the King James Bible.

Which one is correct and why?

Matthew 26:28 KJV
28. For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Matthew 26:28 ASV
28. for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many unto remission of sins.

Which one is correct and why?

Mark 14:24 KJV
24. And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many.

Mark 14:24 ASV
24. And he said unto them, This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.

Why does the Textus Receptus, (which the AV-KJV and Young's-YLT follow) have the word "new", (kainos) before the word for testament or covenant, (diatheke) when the GNT Morph texts do not contain the word "new", (kainos)? What is the impact to our doctrine depending on which one is correct? How do you know for sure that the KJV is correct? Please provide scripture evidence to support your conclusions if you decide to answer. :)

patrick jane
November 5th, 2015, 09:56 PM
Which one is correct and why?

Matthew 26:28 KJV
28. For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Matthew 26:28 ASV
28. for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many unto remission of sins.

Which one is correct and why?

Mark 14:24 KJV
24. And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many.

Mark 14:24 ASV
24. And he said unto them, This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.

Why does the Textus Receptus, (which the AV-KJV and Young's-YLT follow) have the word "new", (kainos) before the word for testament or covenant, (diatheke) when the GNT Morph texts do not contain the word "new", (kainos)? What is the impact to our doctrine depending on which one is correct? How do you know for sure that the KJV is correct? Please provide scripture evidence to support your conclusions if you decide to answer. :)

The covenant and testament spoken of WAS new, with or without the word new. I say why trip over words that do not change the meaning of text. Do you really think it's not new ?

Danoh
November 5th, 2015, 10:03 PM
The covenant and testament spoken of WAS new, with or without the word new. I say why trip over words that do not change the meaning of text. Do you really think it's not new ?

One aspect of the KJVO position is over words added to the text.

In my Cambridge KJV, the word "new" is not in Italics.

Perhaps it was in some other manuscript?

http://biblehub.com/interlinear/matthew/26-28.htm

http://biblehub.com/interlinear/mark/14-24.htm

keypurr
November 5th, 2015, 10:37 PM
What you all need is the Aramaic English New Testament, you would not put your trust in any Greek to English translation.

Totton Linnet
November 5th, 2015, 11:13 PM
I maintain as previously stated that what makes the KJV/Tynedale so very much superior to all others is the THEOLOGY held by the translators, they held rigidly to the reformed theology.

dialm
November 5th, 2015, 11:23 PM
I maintain as previously stated that what makes the KJV/Tynedale so very much superior to all others is the THEOLOGY held by the translators, they held rigidly to the reformed theology.

The very foundation of our society.

chair
November 6th, 2015, 12:40 AM
Quote:
you (like most Christians today) do not believe that any bible in any language is now or ever was the inerrant words of God...

It isn't, ain't, never was, and never claimed to be.

brandplucked
November 6th, 2015, 02:50 AM
Which one is correct and why?

Matthew 26:28 KJV
28. For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Matthew 26:28 ASV
28. for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many unto remission of sins.

Which one is correct and why?

Mark 14:24 KJV
24. And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many.

Mark 14:24 ASV
24. And he said unto them, This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.

Why does the Textus Receptus, (which the AV-KJV and Young's-YLT follow) have the word "new", (kainos) before the word for testament or covenant, (diatheke) when the GNT Morph texts do not contain the word "new", (kainos)? What is the impact to our doctrine depending on which one is correct? How do you know for sure that the KJV is correct? Please provide scripture evidence to support your conclusions if you decide to answer. :)

Hi dagg. Since you have no inerrant Bible to believe in you will be asking yourself this type of question until the Lord comes back or you die, which ever comes first.

Your Vatican Versions like the ESV, NIV, NASB, Jehovah Witness NWT, and the modern Catholic versions like the St. Joseph NAB and the New Jerusalem all omit that word "new".

But your fake Vatican Versions also omit ALL of Matthew 17:21, Matthew 18:11 and the whole of Matthew 23:14 along with hundreds of other words just in the gospel of Matthew.

Sinaiticus and Vaticanus omit the word "new" here in Matthew 26:28.

But it is found in the Majority of all Greek manuscripts including A, C, D, E, F, G, H, K, W, the Old Latin, the Syriac, the Coptic, Boharic, Armenian, Ethiopian, Georgian and Slavonic ancient versions as well as the Diatessaron 185 A.D.

It is so quoted by many early church writers like Irenaeus, Origen, Cyprian, Basil, Chrysostom, Theophilius of Alexandria, Jerome, Augustine and Theodoret.

It is in the text of the Reformation bibles in all languages including the Spanish Cipriano de Valera 1602, Luther's German bible 1545, German Schlachter Bible 2000, the French Martin 1744, Ostervald 1996, French Louis Second 2007, Portuguese Almeida 1671 and the Almeida Corrigida 2009, Italian Diodati 1649, Nuova Diodati 1991, Italian Riveduta 2006.

It was in the earlier Catholic Douay-Rheims 1582 and Douay 1950. It wasn't till the Vatican made a formal agreement with the UBS/Nestle-Aland people that the modern Catholic versions began to omit the word "new"


"the NEW testament" is the reading of Wycliffe, Tyndale, the Great Bible, Matthew's Bible, the Bishops' Bible,the Geneva Bible, the NKJV and LOTS of other English bibles.

It is your Vatican versions like the ESV, NIV, NASB that omit this word as well as the entire verses of Matthew 17:21; 18:11 and 23:14.

You can play this "scholars game" forever and remain an unbeliever in the existence of an inerrant Bible all your life if you want to and you will always remain the bible agnostic that your are today.

Or God can have mercy on you and reveal to you that the KJB is His perfect Bible.

brandplucked
November 6th, 2015, 03:21 AM
Oh,and by the way, dagg. Even your Vatican Versions have the word "new" in them in 1 Corinthians 11:23-25

For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:

24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.

25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the NEW testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.

daqq
November 6th, 2015, 04:24 AM
Hi dagg. Since you have no inerrant Bible to believe in you will be asking yourself this type of question until the Lord comes back or you die, which ever comes first.

Your Vatican Versions like the ESV, NIV, NASB, Jehovah Witness NWT, and the modern Catholic versions like the St. Joseph NAB and the New Jerusalem all omit that word "new".

But your fake Vatican Versions also omit ALL of Matthew 17:21, Matthew 18:11 and the whole of Matthew 23:14 along with hundreds of other words just in the gospel of Matthew.

Sinaiticus and Vaticanus omit the word "new" here in Matthew 26:28.

But it is found in the Majority of all Greek manuscripts including A, C, D, E, F, G, H, K, W, the Old Latin, the Syriac, the Coptic, Boharic, Armenian, Ethiopian, Georgian and Slavonic ancient versions as well as the Diatessaron 185 A.D.

It is so quoted by many early church writers like Irenaeus, Origen, Cyprian, Basil, Chrysostom, Theophilius of Alexandria, Jerome, Augustine and Theodoret.

It is in the text of the Reformation bibles in all languages including the Spanish Cipriano de Valera 1602, Luther's German bible 1545, German Schlachter Bible 2000, the French Martin 1744, Ostervald 1996, French Louis Second 2007, Portuguese Almeida 1671 and the Almeida Corrigida 2009, Italian Diodati 1649, Nuova Diodati 1991, Italian Riveduta 2006.

It was in the earlier Catholic Douay-Rheims 1582 and Douay 1950. It wasn't till the Vatican made a formal agreement with the UBS/Nestle-Aland people that the modern Catholic versions began to omit the word "new"


"the NEW testament" is the reading of Wycliffe, Tyndale, the Great Bible, Matthew's Bible, the Bishops' Bible,the Geneva Bible, the NKJV and LOTS of other English bibles.

It is your Vatican versions like the ESV, NIV, NASB that omit this word as well as the entire verses of Matthew 17:21; 18:11 and 23:14.

You can play this "scholars game" forever and remain an unbeliever in the existence of an inerrant Bible all your life if you want to and you will always remain the bible agnostic that your are today.

Or God can have mercy on you and reveal to you that the KJB is His perfect Bible.


Oh,and by the way, dagg. Even your Vatican Versions have the word "new" in them in 1 Corinthians 11:23-25

For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:

24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.

25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the NEW testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.

1 Corinthians 11:24-25 quotes from Luke 22:19-20 which does indeed have the word kainos-new in all the important manuscripts and codices. However now you have a gaping hole of a problem because there is more than one cup at the Passover Seder and, in the Luke passage, one may clearly discern at least TWO of the Passover Seder cups. You now therefore have TWO "New Covenants" in the KJV because in the Textus Receptus, (AV-KJV) someone apparently decided to conflate Matthew and Mark with the Luke passage by inserting kainos where it does not belong so as to make the passages agree when they are NOT actually speaking of the same cup. The first cup is received with the bread and is called the Covenant FOR MANY, (Daniel 9:27) and confirms the Noachic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, and Davidic, but the cup of the kainos-New Covenant only comes AFTER the principle meal and is ONLY for the disciples because they had been with the Master throughout his ministry. Yeshua says likewise that he had shown his disciples the name of the Father and that they had kept the word of the Father, (John 17:6) and therefore he says to them alone concerning the New Covenant in the Luke passage below: This cup is the New Covenant in my blood, which is shed FOR YOU.

Luke 22:15-20 KJV
15. And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer:
16. For I say unto you, I will not any more eat thereof, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God.
17. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves:
18. For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come.
19. And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.
20. Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.

TWO DIFFERENT CUPS ~ TWO DIFFERENT COVENANTS

In one fell swoop your entire paradigm has crashed and burned though you will surely deny it.

So much for the "KJV ONLY" heresy . . . :crackup:

oatmeal
November 6th, 2015, 05:39 AM
None.

Bravo

Matthew 2:11

I see you actually read that scripture and believe it.

oatmeal
November 6th, 2015, 05:47 AM
Quote:
you (like most Christians today) do not believe that any bible in any language is now or ever was the inerrant words of God.





Oatmeal, I did not say you are not a Christian. I said you do not believe in an inerrant Bible. Now, if you think I am wrong about this (and I could be), then tell us exactly which one it is.

And if you say it is the KJB, then are versions like the ESV, NKJV, NIV, NASB, NET, etc. also the inerrant words of God? Yes or No?

Please answer the question. Most bible agnostics like Bob Enyart and Will Duffy just dodge the question, or give us some big song and dance routine without ever answering the question.

God bless.

Time to clarify some definitions.

Evidently, you recognize that all Bibles have some errors in it including the King James Version

However, God's words as originally given to holy men of God as they were moved by the Holy Spirit is without error. II Peter 1:21

Since most people use the word "Bible" not "God's word" to speak of scripture, I saw no reason to believe you were aware of that difference either.

If I read you correctly, you see that difference.

Therefore you know that the KJV has its own peculiar errors as well, for it is not the original word of God given to the holy men of God, but rather a version of a translation from copies of copies.

chair
November 6th, 2015, 06:10 AM
It isn't, ain't, never was, and never claimed to be..

dialm
November 6th, 2015, 07:17 AM
.

The Protestants arrived at a level of freedom unhear of. I can show you how they did it.

What is your assessment of Protestant freedom?

brandplucked
November 6th, 2015, 09:17 AM
Time to clarify some definitions.

Evidently, you recognize that all Bibles have some errors in it including the King James Version

However, God's words as originally given to holy men of God as they were moved by the Holy Spirit is without error. II Peter 1:21

Since most people use the word "Bible" not "God's word" to speak of scripture, I saw no reason to believe you were aware of that difference either.

If I read you correctly, you see that difference.

Therefore you know that the KJV has its own peculiar errors as well, for it is not the original word of God given to the holy men of God, but rather a version of a translation from copies of copies.

Hi Oatmeal. Sir, you are wrong about several things here. I do NOT believe there are ANY errors in the King James Bible. How you could possibly read anything I have said to think otherwise show that you have a real problem understanding the English language.

Secondly, you could not show me a copy of the Santa Claus "bible" of your "original word of God" if your life depended on it, and you know you can't. Your only "final authority" is your own opinion (like so many others today) and you opinions differ from every body else's.

My final authority is the God given Book called The King James Bible. It is always right. Get used to it.

God bless.

patrick jane
November 6th, 2015, 09:23 AM
Time to clarify some definitions.

Evidently, you recognize that all Bibles have some errors in it including the King James Version

However, God's words as originally given to holy men of God as they were moved by the Holy Spirit is without error. II Peter 1:21

Since most people use the word "Bible" not "God's word" to speak of scripture, I saw no reason to believe you were aware of that difference either.

If I read you correctly, you see that difference.

Therefore you know that the KJV has its own peculiar errors as well, for it is not the original word of God given to the holy men of God, but rather a version of a translation from copies of copies.

I think you were mistaken before you began to clarify. The copies of copies that you refer to had errors and the whole purpose of the KJV was to eliminate the errors, translate and organize ALL KNOWN manuscripts, writings, books etc. etc. This was a great undertaking and there are no errors of doctrine or scripture in the KJV; you can count on it !

oatmeal
November 6th, 2015, 01:26 PM
Hi Oatmeal. Sir, you are wrong about several things here. I do NOT believe there are ANY errors in the King James Bible. How you could possibly read anything I have said to think otherwise show that you have a real problem understanding the English language.

Secondly, you could not show me a copy of the Santa Claus "bible" of your "original word of God" if your life depended on it, and you know you can't. Your only "final authority" is your own opinion (like so many others today) and you opinions differ from every body else's.

My final authority is the God given Book called The King James Bible. It is always right. Get used to it.

God bless.

You remind me of a story of a KJV only person, she said if the KJV was good enough for the apostle Paul, it was good enough for her.

Well, there are errors in the KJV.

One is the addition of words in I John 5:7-8 KJV

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

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

The ASV has it right.

And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is the truth.

8 For there are three who bear witness, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and the three agree in one.

Another is in I Timothy 3:16

The word God was forged into the Stephen's Greek from the word ho, which means which, "God was manifested in the flesh" should read, "which was manifested in the flesh" referring to the mystery.

I Corinthians 12:1 has another KJV error, this time in the italicized word, "gifts", there is no corresponding word in the Greek, pneumatikos should be translated, things pertaining to the spirit or things proceeding from the spirit.

The list is long. Hence the need to rightly divide the word of truth. II Timothy 2:15

brandplucked
November 6th, 2015, 03:40 PM
Well, there are errors in the KJV.

One is the addition of words in I John 5:7-8 KJV

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

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

The ASV has it right.

And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is the truth.

8 For there are three who bear witness, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and the three agree in one.

Another is in I Timothy 3:16

The word God was forged into the Stephen's Greek from the word ho, which means which, "God was manifested in the flesh" should read, "which was manifested in the flesh" referring to the mystery.


Oatmeal. You are greatly misinformed and you STILL have no inerrant Bible to believe in. And now you are using the Vatican Versions.

I asked for your best shot. Not a laundry list I have seen many times before put up by bible agnostics like yourself.

So I will just address the two "biggies" you posted. I said "provable" errors. You have proven nothing. You just gave us your personal, bible rummaging opinion.

1 John 5:7

1 John 5:7 "the Father, the Word and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one"

http://brandplucked.webs.com/1john57.htm

1 Timothy 3:16 “GOD was manifest in the flesh” or the Vatican Versions' "He"?

http://brandplucked.webs.com/1timothy316godorhe.htm

daqq
November 6th, 2015, 04:17 PM
I think you were mistaken before you began to clarify. The copies of copies that you refer to had errors and the whole purpose of the KJV was to eliminate the errors, translate and organize ALL KNOWN manuscripts, writings, books etc. etc. This was a great undertaking and there are no errors of doctrine or scripture in the KJV; you can count on it !

The OP and yourself were just shown a gaping chasm in the KJB and neither of you even chose to respond to what was posted. The jaws of hell have opened up and will swallow you into the earth if you continue refusing to hear the truth. Here it is again:

Matthew 26:28 KJV
28. For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Matthew 26:28 ASV
28. for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many unto remission of sins.

Mark 14:24 KJV
24. And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many.

Mark 14:24 ASV
24. And he said unto them, This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.

Luke 22:17-20 KJV
17. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves:
18. For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come.
19. And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.
20. Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.

Luke 22:17-20 ASV
17. And he received a cup, and when he had given thanks, he said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves:
18. for I say unto you, I shall not drink from henceforth of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come.
19. And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and gave to them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.
20. And the cup in like manner after supper, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood, even that which is poured out for you.

There is only one "New Covenant" and it is only confirmed in Luke 22:20. If you accept the KJB version of Matthew 26:28 and Mark 14:24 then you end up with TWO New Covenants because there are TWO separate cups. And as previously stated the Matthew and Mark passages are the confirmation of the covenant from Daniel 9:27 which clearly states "with many".

Daniel 9:27 KJV
27. And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

Luke makes it perfectly clear that this is exactly what Yeshua was sent to do, that is, to PERFORM the mercy promised to our fathers, to REMEMBER the holy covenant: the OATH which the Most High had sworn to father Abraham:

Luke 1:67-73 KJV
67. And his father Zacharias was filled with the Holy Ghost, and prophesied, saying,
68. Blessed be the Lord God of Israel; for he hath visited and redeemed his people,
69. And hath raised up an horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David;
70. As he spake by the mouth of his holy prophets, which have been since the world began:
71. That we should be saved from our enemies, and from the hand of all that hate us;
72. To perform the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember his holy covenant;
73. The oath which he sware to our father Abraham,

And now because the Textus Receptus inserts kainos-new into the text of Matthew 26:28 and Mark 14:24 the truth is hidden from the eyes of many. In fact there is an entire sect of Christianity who call themselves literalist futurists who say that the covenant of Daniel 9:27 is a covenant or treaty with the antichrist when in fact Yeshua confirms this covenant "with many" at the Last Supper Passover Seder in the Matthew and Mark accounts. Do you not think that calling this covenant "a covenant with the antichrist" is a big deal in the eyes of God? Yes, the jaws of hell are opened up. :crackup:

:rapture:

jamie
November 6th, 2015, 04:30 PM
1 John 5:7 "the Father, the Word and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one"



No Syriac manuscript of any family — Peshito, Philoxenian, or Harklean — has the three witnesses; and their presence in the printed Syriac Gospels is due to translation from the Vulgate.

So too, the Coptic manuscripts — both Sahidic and Bohairic — have no trace of the disputed part, nor have the Ethiopic manuscripts which represent Greek influence through the medium of Coptic.

The Armenian manuscripts, which favour the reading of the Vulgate, are admitted to represent a Latin influence which dates from the twelfth century; early Armenian manuscripts are against the Latin reading.

Of the Itala or Old Latin manuscripts, only two have our present reading of the three witnesses: Codex Monacensis of the sixth or seventh century; and the Speculum, an eighth or ninth century manuscript which gives many quotations from the New Testament.

Even the Vulgate, in the majority of its earliest manuscripts, is without the passage in question. Witnesses to the canonicity are: the Bible of Theodulph (eighth century) in the National Library of Paris; Codex Cavensis (ninth century), the best representative of the Spanish type of text: Toletanus (tenth century); and the majority of Vulgate manuscripts after the twelfth century.

There was some dispute as to the canonicity of the three witnesses as early as the sixth century: for the preface to the Catholic Epistles in Codex Fuldensis (A.D. 541-546) complains about the omission of this passage from some of the Latin versions.

(newadvent.org/ Catholic Encyclopedia/ Epistles of St. John)

brandplucked
November 6th, 2015, 06:44 PM
[INDENT]No Syriac manuscript of any family — Peshito, Philoxenian, or Harklean — has the three witnesses; and their presence in the printed Syriac Gospels is due to translation from the Vulgate.


Jamie. I know all about your textual evidence and why you bible agnostics who do not believe that ANY Bible in any language is now or ever was the inerrant words of God. I am not a newbie to this issue.

Your side ignores all the early witnesses to this verse, some of which are older than anything we have in "the" Greek.

The simple fact remains, you still have NO inerrant Bible to believe in, and God, in His sovereignty, has seen fit to put this verse into a vast multitude of Bibles in ALL languages of the earth, both old and new.

Fight against it all you will, it is still inspired Scripture and the strongest verse in the Bible about the blessed Trinity.


English Bibles that contain all these words in 1 John 5:7-8 are the first complete English Bible ever made by John Wycliffe in 1380. It was in Tyndale’s New Testament of 1525 - "For ther are thre which beare recorde in heuen the father the worde and the wholy goost. And these thre are one.", the Coverdale Bible of 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549, the Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible from 1557 to 1599 -"For there are three, which beare recorde in heauen, the Father, the Worde, and the holy Ghost: and these three are one.", the Beza New Testament 1599, the Douay-Rheims of 1582, and the Authorized Version of 1611.

It is also in the Bill Bible 1671, Mace's New Testament of 1729, John Wesley translation in 1755, the Clarke N.T. 1795, and Thomas Howeis N.T. 1795. It was included in The Revised Translation 1815, The Patrick Paraphrase Bible 1822, Webster's 1833 translation, The Longman Version 1841, The Hammond N.T. 1845, The Morgan N.T. 1848, The Hewett N.T. 1850, The Commonly Received Version 1851, James Murdock's translation of the Syriac Peshitta done in 1852 - "For there are three that testify in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit: and these three are one.", Julia Smith Translation 1855, The Calvin Version 1856, the Kenrick N.T. 1862, The Revised New Testament 1862, The Smith Bible 1876, and Young's literal in 1898.

All the words are found in the NKJV 1982, the New Life Bible 1969, the Amplified Bible of 1987, the 1994 KJV 21st Century Version, The Revised Webster Bible 1995, The Interlinear Greek New Testament 1997 (Larry Pierce), the Third Millennium Bible 1998, Lawrie Translation 1998, Worldwide English N.T. 1998, The Worldwide English New Testament 1998, God's First Truth 1999, Green's 'literal' translation of 2000, The Tomson New Testament 2002, the 2009 Sacred Bible - Catholic Public Domain Version, the Easter/Greek Orthodox Bible 2008, the Heritage Bible 2003, The Resurrection Life N.T. 2005, the Complete Apostle's Bible 2005, The Revised Geneva Bible 2005, The Apostolic Bible 2006, the Catholic Public Domain Version 2009, the 2010 English Jubilee Bible, the Bond Slave Version 2009, the Online Interlinear Bible 2010 by André de Mol, the Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010, The Holy Scriptures VW Edition 2010.



Other English Bibles that include the whole verse are The Work of God Children's Bible 2011, Revised Douay-Rheims bible 2012, Interlinear Hebrew-Greek Scriptures 2012 (Mebust), the Knox Bible of 2012 - "Thus we have a threefold warrant in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, three who are yet one.", the Biblos Interlinear Bible 2013, The International Standard Version 2014 - “For there are three witnesses in heaven—the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one.” and The Holy Bible, and the Modern English Version 2014 - “7 There are three who testify in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and the three are one. 8 There are three that testify on earth: the Spirit, the water, and the blood, and the three are toward the one.”


The Catholic Connection

The entire reading was included in the earlier Catholic bibles like the 1582 Douay-Rheims and as late as the Douay version of 1950, but removed from later Catholic versions (St. Joseph NAB 1970, New Jerusalem bible 1985), but now once again the 2009 The Sacred Bible Public Domain Version has gone back to include it!



Foreign language Bibles that contain all these words are: the Clementine Vulgate - " Quoniam tres sunt, qui testimonium dant in cælo: Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus Sanctus: et hi tres unum sunt.", the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569, Cipriano de Valera 1602, the Spanish Reina Valera 1909, 1960 and 1995 editions, La Nueva Biblia de los Hispanos 2005, La Biblia de las Américas 1997 (put out by the Lockman Foundation, the same people who give us the NASB that omits it) and the 2010 Spanish Reina Valera Gomez bible, "Tres son los que dan testimonio en el cielo: el Padre, el Verbo y el Espíritu Santo; y estos tres son uno."



The words are included in the Italian Diodati Bible of of 1603 and 1649 and the New Diodati of 1991- "nel cielo: il Padre, la Parola e lo Spirito Santo; e questi tre sono uno.".



1 John 5:7-8, is in the 1535 Olivetan Bible. - 7. Car il y en a trois qui rendent témoignage dans le ciel, le Père, la Parole, et le Saint-Esprit: et ces trois sont un. 8. Et il y en a trois qui rendent témoignage sur la terre, l'esprit, et l'eau, et le sang, et les trois sont d'accord.

the French Martin 1744, the French Ostervald 1996 and La Bible de l'Epée 2005, -"dans le ciel, le Père, la Parole, et le Saint-Esprit, et ces trois-là sont un.", the Portuguese de Almeida of 1681 and A Bíblia Sagrada em Portugués and the Portuguese Almeida Corrigida 2009 - "Porque três säo os que testificam no céu: o Pai, a Palavra, e o Espírito Santo; e estes três säo um.".

Other foreign language Bible that include these words are the Afrikaans Bible 1853 - "die hemel: die Vader, die Woord en die Heilige Gees, en hierdie drie is een", Smith and van Dyck's Arabic Bible - " فان الذين يشهدون في السماء هم ثلاثة الآب والكلمة والروح القدس وهؤلاء الثلاثة هم ", the Basque N.T.; the Western Armenian N.T. "Արդարեւ երե՛ք են՝ որ կը վկայեն երկինքի մէջ.- Հայրը, Խօսքը եւ Սուրբ Հոգին, ու այս երեքը մէկ են", Czech Kralicka Bible, Dutch Staten Vertaling "Want Drie zijn er, Die getuigen in den hemel, de Vader, het Woord en de Heilige Geest; en deze Drie zijn Een.", Finnish 1776 "Sillä kolme ovat, jotka todistavat taivaassa: Isä, Sana ja Pyhä Henki, ja ne kolme yksi ovate", the Hungarian Karoli, Icelandic 1981, Latvian N.T. "Jo trīs ir, kas dod liecību debesīs: Tēvs, Vārds un Svētais Gars; un šie trīs ir viens.", Maori -"Tokotoru hoki nga kaiwhakaatu i te rangi, ko te Matua, ko te Kupu, ko te Wairua Tapu: kotahi ano enei tokotoru., Lithuanian "Mat yra trys liudytojai danguje: Tėvas, Žodis ir Šventoji Dvasia; ir šitie trys yra viena." and the Tagalog Ang Salita ng Diyos Bible of 1998 - "May tatlong nagpapatotoo sa langit, ang Ama, ang Salita, ang Banal na Espiritu at ang tatlong ito ay iisa."

The words are in the Romanian Cornilescu Bible and the 2014 Romanian Fidela Bible - "Pentru ca trei sunt cei care aduc marturie in cer: Tatal, Cuvantul si Duhul Sfant; si acestia trei una sunt.", Russian Synodal 1876, Russian Victor Zhuromski, the German Schlachter Bible of 2000, the Thai Bible, the Czech BKR - "na nebi: Otec, Slovo, a Duch Svatý, a ti tři jedno jsou." Ukranian Kulish 1871, the Vietnamese bible 1934 - "ấy là Ðức Thánh Linh đã làm chứng, vì Ðức Thánh Linh tức là lẽ thật.", The Indonesian - Terjemahan Baru (TB) - "Sebab ada tiga yang memberi kesaksian di dalam sorga: Bapa, Firman dan Roh Kudus; dan ketiganya adalah sati.", the Ukranian New Testament - "Бо три їх, що сьвідкують на небі: Отець, Слово і сьвятий Дух, і сї три - одно.", the Xhosa language Bible,

the Modern Greek Bible - "Διοτι τρεις ειναι οι μαρτυρουντες εν τω ουρανω, ο Πατηρ, ο Λογος και το Αγιον Πνευμα, και ουτοι οι τρεις ειναι εν·"

and the Modern Hebrew bible - כי ושלשה המה המעידים בארץ הרוח המים והדם ושלשתם לאחת המה:שלשה המה המעידים בשמים האב הדבר ורוח הקדש ושלשתם אחד

Here is just a partial list of those who contended for the authenticity of this verse.



Cyprian - 250 AD, Athanasius 350 A.D., Priscillian -385 AD, Jerome 420 AD, Fulgentius (late 5th century), Cassiodorus, Isidore of Seville, Jaqub of Edessa, Thomas Aquinas, John Wycliffe, Desiderus Erasmus, Stephanus, Lopez de Zuniga, John Calvin, Theodore Beza, Cipriano de Valera, John Owen, Francis Turretin, John Wesley, John Gill, Matthew Henry, Andrew Fuller, Luis Gaussen, Frederick Nolan, Robert L. Dabney, Thomas Strouse, Floyd Jones, Peter Ruckman, George Ricker Berry, Edward F. Hills, David Otis Fuller, Thomas Holland, Michael Maynard and Donald A. Waite.

jamie
November 6th, 2015, 09:01 PM
Fight against it all you will, it is still inspired Scripture and the strongest verse in the Bible about the blessed Trinity.


And it is spurious according to the Catholic Encyclopedia.

brandplucked
November 7th, 2015, 12:00 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by brandplucked
Fight against it all you will, it is still inspired Scripture and the strongest verse in the Bible about the blessed Trinity.



And it is spurious according to the Catholic Encyclopedia.

Now, there's a thoroughly reliable source of information, to be sure.

Seeing how the "authoritative and never changing" Catholic church has put out at least 8 different English bible versions that I know of and 1 John 5:7 "in heaven, the Father, the Word and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one" is found in the Douay-Rheims 1582, The Challoner-Rheims Version 1941 the 1950 Douay, the 2009 Catholic Public Domain Version and the 2012 Revised Douay-Rheims ALL contain the verse as it stands in the KJB and the Reformation bibles, while the 1970 St. Joseph New American Bible and the New Jerusalem bible 1985 omit it.

The Jesuit counter Reformation is not interested in the truth of the Bible as its final authority. Their stated intent is to undermine faith in what they refer to as The Paper Pope of Protestantism - the Bible itself, and they have done a fine job of it with all you bible agnostics who are now using the new Vatican supervised versions like your NIV, ESV, NASB.



I have a copy of the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece 27th edition right here in front of me. 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 AND the Jehovah Witness New World Translation.

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 VATICAN AND 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."

There it is folks, in their own words. They openly admit that this text is the result of an agreement between the Vatican and the UBS and that the text itself is not "definitive" - it can change, as it already has and will do so in the future, and is not the infallible words of God but merely "a stimulus to further efforts".

jamie
November 7th, 2015, 09:54 AM
...intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people. (Acts 12:4 KJV)

Is Easter a correct translation of pascha?

oatmeal
November 7th, 2015, 01:04 PM
Oatmeal. You are greatly misinformed and you STILL have no inerrant Bible to believe in. And now you are using the Vatican Versions.

I asked for your best shot. Not a laundry list I have seen many times before put up by bible agnostics like yourself.

So I will just address the two "biggies" you posted. I said "provable" errors. You have proven nothing. You just gave us your personal, bible rummaging opinion.

1 John 5:7

1 John 5:7 "the Father, the Word and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one"

http://brandplucked.webs.com/1john57.htm

1 Timothy 3:16 “GOD was manifest in the flesh” or the Vatican Versions' "He"?

http://brandplucked.webs.com/1timothy316godorhe.htm

Since the KJV contains those errors, the KJV is not inerrant, however, the original words of God given to holy men, II Peter 1:21 is inerrant and perfect.

The originals, of which none exist as far as anyone knows, was inspired by God, the copies of copies we have do have mistakes in them as I have shown.

The KJV, though very useful, is not inerrant

brandplucked
November 7th, 2015, 08:14 PM
...intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people. (Acts 12:4 KJV)

Is Easter a correct translation of pascha?

Hi Jamie.Yes, the Greek word paska means Easter just as much as it means Passover.

Here is my article on this. Check out the links too.

http://brandplucked.webs.com/easter.htm

God bless.

patrick jane
November 7th, 2015, 08:26 PM
The OP and yourself were just shown a gaping chasm in the KJB and neither of you even chose to respond to what was posted. The jaws of hell have opened up and will swallow you into the earth if you continue refusing to hear the truth. Here it is again:

Matthew 26:28 KJV
28. For this is my blood of the [COLOR=Red]new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Matthew 26:28 ASV
28. for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many unto remission of sins.

Mark 14:24 KJV
24. And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many.

Mark 14:24 ASV
24. And he said unto them, This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.



Actually I answered that, but I'm not looking it up for you right now. I said something along the lines of - Whether its testament or covenant and whether the word new is there or not - the news is new. A new testament and covenant. You see chasms where the KJB explains perfectly.

PS - I also thing shed is a better word than poured

Totton Linnet
November 7th, 2015, 08:31 PM
Since the KJV contains those errors, the KJV is not inerrant, however, the original words of God given to holy men, II Peter 1:21 is inerrant and perfect.

The originals, of which none exist as far as anyone knows, was inspired by God, the copies of copies we have do have mistakes in them as I have shown.

The KJV, though very useful, is not inerrant

Could you list these errors, if you have in another post give the link please

daqq
November 7th, 2015, 09:39 PM
Actually I answered that, but I'm not looking it up for you right now. I said something along the lines of - Whether its testament or covenant and whether the word new is there or not - the news is new. A new testament and covenant. You see chasms where the KJB explains perfectly.

PS - I also thing shed is a better word than poured

I was not speaking of my first post but rather my second post that shows the gaping hole in the doctrine of the KJV which neither you nor the OP responded to. The first post, (which you did respond to) was merely the opening question. After the OP responded to my first post I showed from the very passage that was quoted why the Textus Receptus, and therefore the KJV, is in catastrophic error concerning New Covenant doctrine. In addition to that, what has not yet been mentioned, is that Paul clearly tells us which cup he speaks about in the previous chapter to the Corinthians:

1 Corinthians 10:15-18 KJV
15. I speak as to wise men; judge ye what I say.
16. The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?
17. For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.
18. Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar?

Herein Paul clearly states that he speaks to the wise, that is, to those who know and understand the truth. The first cup of the Passover Seder is called the cup of sanctification. The second cup of the Seder is called the cup of plagues, (remembrance of the plagues performed upon Egypt). The third cup of the Seder is called THE CUP OF BLESSING which is exactly what Paul calls it in the above passage. It is very clear to those willing to see it. The KJV suffers from critical and catastrophic error because whoever inserted kainos-new into the Seder in the Matthew and Mark accounts clearly did not understand these facts about the multiple cups in the Passover Seder. :)

patrick jane
November 7th, 2015, 10:07 PM
I was not speaking of my first post but rather my second post that shows the gaping hole in the doctrine of the KJV which neither you nor the OP responded to. The first post, (which you did respond to) was merely the opening question. After the OP responded to my first post I showed from the very passage that was quoted why the Textus Receptus, and therefore the KJV, is in catastrophic error concerning New Covenant doctrine. In addition to that, what has not yet been mentioned, is that Paul clearly tells us which cup he speaks about in the previous chapter to the Corinthians:

1 Corinthians 10:15-18 KJV
15. I speak as to wise men; judge ye what I say.
16. The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?
17. For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.
18. Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar?

Herein Paul clearly states that he speaks to the wise, that is, to those who know and understand the truth. The first cup of the Passover Seder is called the cup of sanctification. The second cup of the Seder is called the cup of plagues, (remembrance of the plagues performed upon Egypt). The third cup of the Seder is called THE CUP OF BLESSING which is exactly what Paul calls it in the above passage. It is very clear to those willing to see it. The KJV suffers from critical and catastrophic error because whoever inserted kainos-new into the Seder in the Matthew and Mark accounts clearly did not understand these facts about the multiple cups in the Passover Seder. :)

So are you saying there's no new covenant ? I'll have to go back and read the whole thread maybe.

patrick jane
November 7th, 2015, 10:19 PM
1 Corinthians 11:24-25 quotes from Luke 22:19-20 which does indeed have the word kainos-new in all the important manuscripts and codices. However now you have a gaping hole of a problem because there is more than one cup at the Passover Seder and, in the Luke passage, one may clearly discern at least TWO of the Passover Seder cups. You now therefore have TWO "New Covenants" in the KJV because in the Textus Receptus, (AV-KJV) someone apparently decided to conflate Matthew and Mark with the Luke passage by inserting kainos where it does not belong so as to make the passages agree when they are NOT actually speaking of the same cup. The first cup is received with the bread and is called the Covenant FOR MANY, (Daniel 9:27) and confirms the Noachic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, and Davidic, but the cup of the kainos-New Covenant only comes AFTER the principle meal and is ONLY for the disciples because they had been with the Master throughout his ministry. Yeshua says likewise that he had shown his disciples the name of the Father and that they had kept the word of the Father, (John 17:6) and therefore he says to them alone concerning the New Covenant in the Luke passage below: This cup is the New Covenant in my blood, which is shed FOR YOU.

Luke 22:15-20 KJV
15. And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer:
16. For I say unto you, I will not any more eat thereof, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God.
17. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves:
18. For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come.
19. And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.
20. Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.

TWO DIFFERENT CUPS ~ TWO DIFFERENT COVENANTS

In one fell swoop your entire paradigm has crashed and burned though you will surely deny it.

So much for the "KJV ONLY" heresy . . . :crackup:

C'mon dagg, one is old and one is new. simple

patrick jane
November 7th, 2015, 10:26 PM
And it is spurious according to the Catholic Encyclopedia.

Catholic ?

jamie
November 7th, 2015, 11:36 PM
Hi Jamie.Yes, the Greek word paska means Easter just as much as it means Passover.


Passover and Easter are never on the same date, so should Christians observe both?

Why was Jesus raised on the first day of the week?

aikido7
November 8th, 2015, 12:26 AM
Don't Confuse "the Word of God" with "the word of God" *

Bible agnostics ( a = not + gnostic = to know) who do not know for sure what God may or may not have said in literally hundreds of different places in the same verses of todays Bible Babble Buffet versions on the market often confuse these two Biblical terms - "the Word of God" and "the word of God". *

I have seen this so many times that I finally decided to write an article about it so I can repost it instead of having to type out the same response again and again.

Note - If you think you believe in the inerrancy of the Bible and are not a bible agnostic, then take The Bible Agnostic Test and see if you know for sure what God wrote in His Book.

See "The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy = just more Evangelical mumbo jumbo signifying nothing"

http://brandplucked.webs.com/chicagostate.htm*

And if you think (as many affirm) that no doctrines are changed, then see Fake Bible Versions DO teach false doctrines - Links to examples

http://brandplucked.webs.com/fakebiblesdoctrine.htm*

*One such bible agnostic and unbeliever in the inerrancy of ANY Bible in any language recently posted the following:*

*"Where do you get the thought that the Word of God is a "real, tangible, in print, hold it in your hands and read, Book"? This is why KJV Only people can not have a logical discussion on the matter.* For you it must be a single hard copy book. The reality is that God gave us His very Word in other languages than English, this necessitates either learning Greek and Hebrew (I have studied Hebrew myself for 10 years and hope to start Greek soon) OR translating the original languages into our language." [End of comments]

*

There is so much muddle headed thinking in this man's statement that it is tough to know where to begin addressing his points.* First of all "the Word of God" is NOT the same as "the word of God".* The title "the Word" is found in the King James Bible 7 times; only 6 times in most modern Vatican Versions like the ESV, NIV, NASB, NET, Holman, etc.


*It is found in John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

John 1:14 "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us..."

1 John 1:1 "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life."

1 John 5:7 "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."

Revelation 19:13 "And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God."

The term "the Word" with a capital W refers to the Lord Jesus Christ, the Second Person of the blessed Trinity. The Word existed from eternity, was incarnated as the Son of man/Son of God, lived a perfect life for 33 years on this earth, He gave us the words His Father had given him, was crucified on a cross at Calvary where He bore the sins of His people and paid for them with His own shed blood, rose from the dead three days later and ascended into heaven where He now sits at the right hand of God the Father. And He is coming again in power and glory to raise His redeemed saints from the dead and to set up His kingdom on this earth.

*
But "the word of God" did none of these things and is not a Person.* The "word of God" is His inspired, written revelation of both Who this Word of God is and what He did to redeem His people. And contrary to what our Bible critic said, it IS a real, tangible, hard copy Book you can actually hold in your hands, read and believe is the very words of the living God.

The written words of God tell us of our desperate need for a Saviour from sin, hell and damnation.* They also record Gods' dealings with His people and the surrounding nations during their long history and it tells us many things about future events. We know NOTHING about Who the Word of God is or what He did for us, apart from the written word of God; nothing.

Now, let's address a couple of other things this shallow thinking bible agnostic said in his post.* He stated "The reality is that God gave us His very Word in other languages than English, this necessitates either learning Greek and Hebrew."*

*
This man is a very confused individual. First of all, the Word is the Lord Jesus Christ and He is not a language like English or any other language. He is a Person revealed to us by means of God's written words in many languages.* I agree that the gospel (the written revelation of the saving grace of God through our Lord Jesus Christ) is found in ANY bible version out there, no matter how corrupt it may be in many other ways. *

God can and does use any bible version to bring His people to faith in the Saviour - the Word of God.* But nobody seriously believes that versions like the ESV, NIV, NASB, NKJV, NET, Holman Standard etc. are the complete and inerrant words of God. Nobody, not even the people who keep churning them out one after another.

Secondly, this man who has NO complete and inerrant Bible in ANY language (and he knows he doesn't) now tells us that we need to learn Greek and Hebrew.* It seems that "The Blatantly Obvious" needs to be pointed out to these people over and over again, and hopefully, it will finally get through to them.*
*
THERE ARE NO "original autographs”. They do not exist and everybody knows that.* When Bible agnostics refer to "the" Hebrew and "the" Greek, they always fail to mention WHICH "the" Hebrew and "the" Greek they are referring to.

The Vatican Versions like the ESV, NIV, NASB, NET etc. often reject the clear Hebrew readings, and not even in the same places. If you look at the footnotes in versions like the NIV or ESV you will see note after note telling us things like "Some Hebrew mss. read...." or "One Hebrew mss. reads...." or "Most Hebrew mss. read...." or "The meaning of the Hebrew is uncertain."*

And when we come to "the Greek" their case really begins to fall apart.* There are at least 30 different "the" Greek texts out there like those of Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, Elziever, Westcott-Hort, the ever changing UBS/Nestle-Aland (now in its 28th edition and working on their 29th), Tischendorf, von Soden, Vogels, Merk, Bover or the Hodges - Farstad or perhaps the Robinson - Pierpoint Majority Texts - take your pick.* And none of them agree with each other, and several of them disagree by literally THOUSANDS OF WORDS.
*
It should also be pointed out that both the ancient biblical Hebrew and the biblical Greek are themselves archaic languages written in a form that is NOT spoken today in either Israel or Greece; the Hebrew speaking Jews and the native Greek speakers can understand them, but they do not speak or write that way today.

You will have to learn an entire new alphabet and language just to get half way proficient. They are also A LOT harder to understand that anything you are going to find in the English text of the Authorized King James Bible, and you are STILL going to end up with NO complete and inerrant Bible to believe in!

Do these bible agnostics ever bother to think their position through and follow the logic of where there arguments will lead them?* It seems they do not.

Only God knows for sure which readings, names, numbers, phrases and entire verses are the ones He originally inspired to be in His Book and only God can work in history to bring about the publication and printing of His written words in this book we call the Bible. *

We believe He has done this and can tell anyone where to get a copy of it for themselves. The bible agnostics and the "we need to learn Hebrew and Greek" promoters do not believe such a Book exists and certainly cannot tell you where to get one.

My advice, along with thousands of other born again, blood bought saints of God, is this - Get yourself a copy of the King James Holy Bible. It is the only one that has stood the test of time and that God has clearly set His marks of approval on as being His complete, inspired and inerrant "word of God" which tells us the whole truth about "the Word of God." *

All of grace, believing the Book - the Authorized King James Holy Bible.* Don't settle for an inferior substitute. *

Will Kinney *

For further thoughts on this topic, may I recommend the article showing many "coincidences" of history where God clearly sets His mark of approval on the King James Bible. It is called "God's Persistent Witness to the Absolute Standard of Written Truth = the King James Holy Bible."

http://brandplucked.webs.com/absolutestandard.htm*

*

Return to Articles - http://brandplucked.webs.com/kjbarticles.htm

*I think your post needs clarification.

There is literally no such thing as the "Word" of God. Rather, all we have are the "words" of God as interpreted through the ages by inspired human beings.

Every version and translation of the Bible found on bookshelves today gives a lie to the medieval idea that God's presence and power is perfectly captured by the writings of men. People are finite; God is infinite.

It simply cannot be done.

We cannot apprehend God directly. We can only apprehend our own interpretation of him.

If we still insist the Bible is "inerrant" then we should also never admit that our understanding of it is also inerrant.

chair
November 8th, 2015, 02:28 AM
It seems that some people, deep down, need an absolute authority. Anything less than absolute doesn't fulfill that need in their souls.

Since there is a notable lack of reliable prophets today, they have no choice but to turn a book into an Authority. It makes no difference at all that the book in question is a human translation of an ancient text that itself has problems. They need an authority, and they will create one.

aikido7
November 8th, 2015, 02:33 AM
It seems that some people, deep down, need an absolute authority. Anything less than absolute doesn't fulfill that need in their souls.

Since there is a notable lack of reliable prophets today, they have no choice but to turn a book into an Authority. It makes no difference at all that the book in question is a human translation of an ancient text that itself has problems. They need an authority, and they will create one.They have made both Jesus and the Bible into idols.

And idolatry is one of the basic sins of Christianity and Judaism.

daqq
November 8th, 2015, 04:55 AM
So are you saying there's no new covenant ? I'll have to go back and read the whole thread maybe.


C'mon dagg, one is old and one is new. simple

Once upon the flicker of a flame there was a proselyte sojourner of the name Judas Simon Baker who sat down one evening with a few of his friends to partake of a principle meal. And as the House Master delayed he was watching his watch thinking, "Man, I'm really gonna be runnin late!" Finally the House Master brought forth the bread and wine; but as the first cup was passed around Judas Hatrick refused, saying, That one isn't for me, and besides, I'm really running late, can we hurry up the sup? Wazzzup? And when the next cup was passed around he refused once again, saying, C'mon man, was I there when Egypt was plagued? And finally the third cup was passed around, the cup of the blessing and new understanding, and with a gulp, Judas said, Thanx guys, gotta go, and rushed out the door of the house. And it was night, the darkest blackest night of all nights, like the blackness of the darkness forever: and though he thought it just a little strange, yet he continued on his merry way to his appointment with the chief priests and rulers of the city.

:devil:

oatmeal
January 20th, 2016, 08:36 AM
The word of God is God's words, that is, scripture.

Jesus Christ is referred to the word of God because he lived it.

He is the perfect example of someone who lived the written words. Thus he is the word of God in the flesh. John 1:14

Of course, God is the word He authored His word, God breathed, II Timothy 3:16, and it was written that we might decide to love and serve Him according to those words.