PDA

View Full Version : New International PerVersion



Pages : [1] 2

Truster
November 18th, 2013, 05:38 AM
http://www.av1611.org/niv.html

Squeaky
November 18th, 2013, 06:55 AM
Thanks for the website.

chrysostom
November 18th, 2013, 07:46 AM
when I saw this
I figured the NIV was now in first place
and
it is

Top 10 Bible Translations in the United States (http://www.christianpost.com/news/top-10-bible-translations-in-the-united-states-92219/)

Totton Linnet
November 18th, 2013, 07:51 AM
I must admit I can't stay reading these new versions long....

Truster
November 18th, 2013, 07:55 AM
when I saw this
I figured the NIV was now in first place
and
it is

Top 10 Bible Translations in the United States (http://www.christianpost.com/news/top-10-bible-translations-in-the-united-states-92219/)

Why am I not surprised?

I was given an NIV when I was converted and it fell apart with use within 18 months. One day I was in Genesis and came to the verse, And God said to Noah, ''go into the ark''….I was not happy about this and could find no comfort. I checked with a KJV and discovered that the Eternal had said to Noah, ''COME into the ark''. I had great comfort in this and wondered what else my be amiss that would affect my soul. There are of course thousands of omissions and perversions in the NIV.

chrysostom
November 18th, 2013, 07:58 AM
Why am I not surprised?

I was given an NIV when I was converted and it fell apart with use within 18 months. One day I was in Genesis and came to the verse, And God said to Noah, ''go into the ark''….I was not happy about this and could find no comfort. I checked with a KJV and discovered that the Eternal had said to Noah, ''COME into the ark''. I had great comfort in this and wondered what else my be amiss that would affect my soul. There are of course thousands of omissions and perversions in the NIV.

and you use this example?

surely your faith is strong enough to handle this

Truster
November 18th, 2013, 08:00 AM
I must admit I can't stay reading these new versions long....

I used to volunteer at the Evangelical Movement of Wales bookshop in Town, but I removed my support because of the rubbish they sold. The greatest of which was the NIV. Once we know something is wrong we have a duty to act upon that knowledge. I lost a lot of friends in that action.

Totton Linnet
November 18th, 2013, 08:02 AM
Why am I not surprised?

I was given an NIV when I was converted and it fell apart with use within 18 months. One day I was in Genesis and came to the verse, And God said to Noah, ''go into the ark''….I was not happy about this and could find no comfort. I checked with a KJV and discovered that the Eternal had said to Noah, ''COME into the ark''. I had great comfort in this and wondered what else my be amiss that would affect my soul. There are of course thousands of omissions and perversions in the NIV.

What a world of difference there is between come and go...it shows a completely different perception of God.

Truster
November 18th, 2013, 08:08 AM
and you use this example?

surely your faith is strong enough to handle this

That's one example and where did I mention anything about faith? Are you suggesting that a little lie is OK? Because if it's not truth, it's a lie. There are no grey areas in this matter it's either black or white.
I have been set free by the truth. Not half truths or almost truths and I hold that truth as dear to me.
Noah was a type of Messiah and if the Eternal Father had not been with Noah it's equally possible He was not in Messiah reconciling to world to himself. It may seem insignificant, but its vital in understanding what took place. At the ark, and at Calvary.

Truster
November 18th, 2013, 08:14 AM
What a world of difference there is between come and go...it shows a completely different perception of God.

I will never leave you or forsake you.

It reminds me of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego they were not in the furnace alone. And we know wherever we are in whatever we do He is in the testing, the trial and salvation.

He doesn't say go, He always says come. Try Rev 22: 17.

nikolai_42
November 18th, 2013, 10:27 AM
http://www.av1611.org/niv.html

One of the things (not the only) that keeps me from considering being a "card carrying" KJVOist is this :




The NIV & Zondervan

A little known fact: In 1988 Zondervan and the NIV was purchased by Harper & Row, Publishers (now HarperCollins Publishers). HarperCollins publishes "pro-homosexual" books such as Making Out, The Book of Lesbian Sex and Sexuality described as "Beautifully illustrated with full-color photography,. . . Making Out is the complete illustrated guide to lesbian sexuality and relationships. . .the intricacies of love play. . ." and many other pro-homosexual books!

HarperCollins is a subsidiary of the global media empire, The News Corporation, owned by Rupert Murdock. The News Corporation empire include Fox Broadcasting, Twentieth Century Fox, and more than 128 newspapers. Fox Broadcasting produces some of the most sexually lewd shows on television. Murdock also publishes the British newspaper, the Sun, notorious for its nude pin-ups.

VERY IMPORTANT! For the REAL PROOF Check out this link to HarperCollins

Now where is Don Wildmon when we really need him? Don was quick to boycott Kmart because subsidiary, Waldenbooks sold Playboy and Penthouse. Kmart can't "hold a candle" to the "filth" spewed by The News Corporation. Why isn't Don boycotting Zondervan and the NIV? Friend, every time you purchase the NIV you are giving to people who produce pro-homosexuality, pornographic material — AND THE SATANIC BIBLE! "Can two walk together, except they be AGREED?" Amos 3:3

Jesus Christ plainly said in Matthew 7:17-18:

Even so every GOOD tree bringeth forth GOOD fruit; but a CORRUPT tree bringeth forth EVIL FRUIT. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a CORRUPT tree bring forth GOOD FRUIT. (Matthew 7:17-18)

Do you think Jesus Christ was LIEING?

Do you really believe God would ALLOW His HOLY word to be "owned" by that group? ". . .for what fellowship hath RIGHTEOUSNESS with UNRIGHTEOUSNESS? and what communion hath light with darkness?"2 Cor. 6:14

Do you actually believe God would ALLOW His Holy Word to published by the same ungodly people who publish the Satanic Bible?

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)

Please note that I don't have any problems with the KJV and after having had an NIV for several years in my youth, I find myself unable to go back to it. It doesn't have the power or authority that the KJV has.

But...with that said...it's things like the above quote that make me convinced that the KJVO people are missing something foundational. King James was a notorious pervert himself. And to any KJVOist who challenges that, let him allow one man to call another "my sweet child and wife" (and that's just the beginning of his debauchery). The point is, James himself commissioned the KJV because he didn't like the Geneva bible. He was the one responsible for it - even if only as a figurehead. HarperCollins has only bought the rights to the NIV. King James, the rotter he was, bore the original responsibility for the KJV. How is that any different?

So while neither HarperCollins or King James the man are examples of holy living, the KJVOist lives in a glass house and throws stones. And this just builds on itself so the KJVOist starts to see conspiracies and "God-haters" everywhere. And what this results in is what I believe the KJV calls "railing". Sometimes unfounded allegations coming from a spirit of bitter hatred. But they don't need to be unfounded, necessarily. Just a willingness to impugn and castigate anyone who says anything against them.

But chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government. Presumptuous are they, selfwilled, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities.
Whereas angels, which are greater in power and might, bring not railing accusation against them before the Lord.
But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption;
2 Peter 2:10-12

If you've ever heard what comes from the mouths and pens of the likes of KJVOists such as Peter Ruckman and Gail Riplinger, you know that "railing" is a common occurrence.

One can love the KJV more than any other "modern" version without being a KJVOist

Nick M
November 18th, 2013, 10:28 AM
There are of course thousands of omissions and perversions in the NIV.

You can always call it the HIV. :up:

Spitfire
November 18th, 2013, 10:35 AM
I actually (finally) had a look at a copy of the much-maligned NIV recently.

I didn't think it was as bad as people make it out to be. Just a bit... neutered.

I wouldn't choose it. But I don't think it's really such an abomination.

Zeke
November 18th, 2013, 10:40 AM
That's one example and where did I mention anything about faith? Are you suggesting that a little lie is OK? Because if it's not truth, it's a lie. There are no grey areas in this matter it's either black or white.
I have been set free by the truth. Not half truths or almost truths and I hold that truth as dear to me.
Noah was a type of Messiah and if the Eternal Father had not been with Noah it's equally possible He was not in Messiah reconciling to world to himself. It may seem insignificant, but its vital in understanding what took place. At the ark, and at Calvary.

Isn't the new covenant based on the spirit? 2Cor 3:2-3.

Jabin
November 18th, 2013, 10:44 AM
Why am I not surprised?

I was given an NIV when I was converted and it fell apart with use within 18 months. One day I was in Genesis and came to the verse, And God said to Noah, ''go into the ark''….I was not happy about this and could find no comfort. I checked with a KJV and discovered that the Eternal had said to Noah, ''COME into the ark''. I had great comfort in this and wondered what else my be amiss that would affect my soul. There are of course thousands of omissions and perversions in the NIV.

What difference does "come" vs. "go" make?

Is the KJV your version of choice?

Truster
November 18th, 2013, 10:54 AM
Isn't the new covenant based on the spirit? 2Cor 3:2-3.

As originally given.

Truster
November 18th, 2013, 10:56 AM
What difference does "come" vs. "go" make?

Is the KJV your version of choice?

Try telling your children to go when you mean come and come when you mean go.

I have a number of translations.

chrysostom
November 18th, 2013, 11:09 AM
the kjv has never threatened my beliefs
and
the niv shouldn't threaten yours

The New International Version (NIV) (http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/New-International-Version-NIV-Bible/) is a completely original translation of the Bible developed by more than one hundred scholars working from the best available Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts.

Jerry Shugart
November 18th, 2013, 11:09 AM
I checked with a KJV and discovered that the Eternal had said to Noah, ''COME into the ark''. I had great comfort in this and wondered what else my be amiss that would affect my soul. There are of course thousands of omissions and perversions in the NIV.

At least the NIV does not teach that the Lord will break His promises, as does the KJB:


"After the number of the days in which ye searched the land, even forty days, each day for a year, shall ye bear your iniquities, even forty years, and ye shall know my breach of promise" (Num.14:34; KJV).

The NIV does not make that error:


"For forty years—one year for each of the forty days you explored the land—you will suffer for your sins and know what it is like to have me against you’ " (Num.14:34; NIV).

Truster
November 18th, 2013, 11:17 AM
At least the NIV does not teach that the Lord will break His promises, as does the KJB:

KJB….. Russian spies?

''breach of promise'' is a mistranslation it should be, ''alienation''. Opposition gives a better sense of the term, but alienation conveys the original sense of a negative reaction to a planned action. To break or bring to nought.

The NIV is closer, but neither is accurate.

Jerry Shugart
November 18th, 2013, 11:19 AM
KJB….. Russian spies?

No, it is KJB Only...Russian spies!

Truster
November 18th, 2013, 11:31 AM
the kjv has never threatened my beliefs
and
the niv shouldn't threaten yours

The New International Version (NIV) (http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/New-International-Version-NIV-Bible/) is a completely original translation of the Bible developed by more than one hundred scholars working from the best available Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts.

One hundred scholars? hahahahaha…you crack me up, you really do.

Truster
November 18th, 2013, 11:33 AM
No, it is KJB Only...Russian spies!

I'm not sure if this post is meant to be enlightening or funny. It has failed in both….?

Zeke
November 18th, 2013, 11:36 AM
As originally given.

The testament of the spirit is not written with ink.

Truster
November 18th, 2013, 11:38 AM
The testament of the spirit is not written with ink.

Try telling that to the printer….

Squeaky
November 18th, 2013, 11:42 AM
1 Tim 4:1-2

1 Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons,
2 speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron,
(NKJ)

Col 2:20-23
20 Therefore, if you died with Christ from the basic principles of the world, why, as though living in the world, do you subject yourselves to regulations--
21 "Do not touch, do not taste, do not handle,"
22 which all concern things which perish with the using-- according to the commandments and doctrines of men?
23 These things indeed have an appearance of wisdom in self-imposed religion, false humility, and neglect of the body, but are of no value against the indulgence of the flesh.
(NKJ)

intojoy
November 18th, 2013, 11:43 AM
Many of the people on the translation committee of the NIV are replacement theologians and they've paraphrased their theology into the text rather than translating.


Posted from the TOL App!

Zeke
November 18th, 2013, 11:44 AM
Try telling that to the printer….

Lots of money involved in these religious books so the printer would object no doubt.

Or just rely on the spirit to write it on your heart freely!!

chrysostom
November 18th, 2013, 11:45 AM
the niv is rightly dividing bible sales

Truster
November 18th, 2013, 11:45 AM
1 Tim 4:1-2

1 Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons,
2 speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron,
(NKJ)

Col 2:20-23
20 Therefore, if you died with Christ from the basic principles of the world, why, as though living in the world, do you subject yourselves to regulations--
21 "Do not touch, do not taste, do not handle,"
22 which all concern things which perish with the using-- according to the commandments and doctrines of men?
23 These things indeed have an appearance of wisdom in self-imposed religion, false humility, and neglect of the body, but are of no value against the indulgence of the flesh.
(NKJ)

Are you making an attempt at being spiritual? Because what you have posted bears no identifying relationship to a discussion on Bible translations. If there isn't a rule on cutting and pasting unrelated scriptures then there should be one.

chrysostom
November 18th, 2013, 11:47 AM
Are you making an attempt at being spiritual? Because what you have posted bears no identifying relationship to a discussion on Bible translations. If there isn't a rule on cutting and pasting unrelated scriptures then there should be one.

it's his software that does it

Jerry Shugart
November 18th, 2013, 11:49 AM
I'm not sure if this post is meant to be enlightening or funny. It has failed in both….?

Of course it failed because it was a take-off on your failed attempt at humor when you said:


KJB...Russian spies!

What's the matter? Why do you not even attempt to defend the mis-translation found in the KJB which teaches that God will break His promises?

Or perhaps you think that God will indeed break His promises?

Truster
November 18th, 2013, 11:53 AM
Many of the people on the translation committee of the NIV are replacement theologians and they've paraphrased their theology into the text rather than translating.


Posted from the TOL App!

It never pretended to be a translation it was simply a paraphrase and not a very good or accurate one. They have caused problems for translations or paraphrase into other languages. I was doing some work yesterday and checking out some verses in 32 different language translations. I found the same mistakes from the NIV in the Somali and the Swahili Bibles. NIV Matthew 27:46 Gives Eloy, Eloy instead of Eli, Eli and the same mistakes have been transferred.

Truster
November 18th, 2013, 11:56 AM
Of course it failed because it was a take-off on your failed attempt at humor when you said:



What's the matter? Why do you not even attempt to defend the mis-translation found in the KJB which teaches that God will break His promises?

Or perhaps you think that God will indeed break His promises?

I think you'll find, no wait, I'm sure you'll find my answer in post 20 if you can stop flying off the handle long enough to read it.

Truster
November 18th, 2013, 11:58 AM
it's his software that does it

Softwhere? ''In the head'', as my mother would have said..hahahahhaa.

Jabin
November 18th, 2013, 12:07 PM
Many of the people on the translation committee of the NIV are replacement theologians and they've paraphrased their theology into the text rather than translating.

Intolies has weighed in, now we know the Devil's two-cents on the topic.

Liar, support your claim that most of the NIV translators are "replacement" theologians. The irony of your lie is that the new NIV is one of the most pro-jewish translations around... which is the real reason Christians should avoid it.

Jerry Shugart
November 18th, 2013, 12:27 PM
I think you'll find, no wait, I'm sure you'll find my answer in post 20 if you can stop flying off the handle long enough to read it.

So you do admit that the translation in the KJB is not correct.

Thanks!

Jabin
November 18th, 2013, 12:32 PM
At least the NIV does not teach that the Lord will break His promises, as does the KJB:


"After the number of the days in which ye searched the land, even forty days, each day for a year, shall ye bear your iniquities, even forty years, and ye shall know my breach of promise" (Num.14:34; KJV).

The NIV does not make that error:


"For forty years—one year for each of the forty days you explored the land—you will suffer for your sins and know what it is like to have me against you’ " (Num.14:34; NIV).

I doubt this is an error made by the KJV translators. More likely, the meaning of the language has changed since 1611, and that the NIV and KJV mean essentially the same thing. But, the end result is the same, the modern reader reads something that isn't correct.

Truster
November 18th, 2013, 12:45 PM
I doubt this is an error made by the KJV translators. More likely, the meaning of the language has changed since 1611, and that the NIV and KJV mean essentially the same thing. But, the end result is the same, the modern reader reads something that isn't correct.

Jabin I hate to be the one to break this to you, but the KJV is not truly accurate. One of the reasons is it was translated to be read in the churches and because of that it had to flow verbally when read aloud. One of the things they did was to add auxiliary verbs and impose a past or future tense to verses that were present tense.They mixed up ''in, by, on and of'' in many verses. Great care was not taken to be true and accurate where poetic licence was being taken. Their worse offence was not to transliterate the Names and Titles of Deity.

James Strong said this, ''all translators are traitors'' and he was correct, because there were often no corresponding words in the target language. Shakespeare was of great assistance because he added thousands of words to the English language and they were used by the translators.

The only accurate scriptures are those which were originally given.

Truster
November 18th, 2013, 12:47 PM
So you do admit that the translation in the KJB is not correct.

Thanks!
By KJB do you mean KJV? If not what does it mean. As I've said to me KJB is the Russian spy agency….and I'm not joking.

Spitfire
November 18th, 2013, 12:50 PM
KJV, KJB, KGB... it's all the same, right?

Jerry Shugart
November 18th, 2013, 12:59 PM
By KJB do you mean KJV? If not what does it mean. As I've said to me KJB is the Russian spy agency….and I'm not joking.

The initials KJB means "King James Bible."

The Russian spy agency is the KGB, not the KJB.

So I thought that you were joking but now I find out that you were only misinformed.

Truster
November 18th, 2013, 02:27 PM
The initials KJB means "King James Bible."

The Russian spy agency is the KGB, not the KJB.

So I thought that you were joking but now I find out that you were only misinformed.


For six years I worked in a Christian Book shop and we sold Bibles in as many versions as you could list from memory. I never, ever heared anyone ask or describe a KJB. Its been called the KJV of the Bible for what seems forever, but you decide to change that and bring in confusion. But you only use it in the first sentence and then revert to KJV. Why don't you just admit to a typo and end the suffering?

Jerry Shugart
November 18th, 2013, 02:56 PM
For six years I worked in a Christian Book shop and we sold Bibles in as many versions as you could list from memory. I never, ever heared anyone ask or describe a KJB.

Many describe it is the "King James Bible" and I simply use the initials "KJB" to describe that Bible.

I am not the only one who uses those initials to describe the King James Bible. Check out this site:


http://www.kjbthefilm.com/

I use the initials KJV when I quote a verse so that others will know that that particular verse came from the "King James Version" of the Bible. But when I speak specifically of the King James Bible I use the initials KJB.

intojoy
November 18th, 2013, 03:48 PM
Closest translated to manuscripts:

1. ASV 1901
2. NASB
3.NKJV
4. KJV

as stated by Dr Arnold Fruchtenbaum. The last I spoke with him he was still going thru the ESV and withheld commenting on that version last year.


Posted from the TOL App!

CabinetMaker
November 18th, 2013, 03:52 PM
For six years I worked in a Christian Book shop and we sold Bibles in as many versions as you could list from memory. I never, ever heared anyone ask or describe a KJB. Its been called the KJV of the Bible for what seems forever, but you decide to change that and bring in confusion. But you only use it in the first sentence and then revert to KJV. Why don't you just admit to a typo and end the suffering?

Much ado about nothing. I have seen KJB used quite frequently to identify the King James Bible. Now that you know at different areas of the country use different initials to describe the same thing, drop and move on.

intojoy
November 18th, 2013, 03:54 PM
It never pretended to be a translation it was simply a paraphrase and not a very good or accurate one. They have caused problems for translations or paraphrase into other languages. I was doing some work yesterday and checking out some verses in 32 different language translations. I found the same mistakes from the NIV in the Somali and the Swahili Bibles. NIV Matthew 27:46 Gives Eloy, Eloy instead of Eli, Eli and the same mistakes have been transferred.


Peace and mercy to all who follow this rule—to the Israel of God. (Galatians 6:16 NIV)

And those who will walk by this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God. (Galatians 6:16 NASB)

Two groups became one in the NIV


Posted from the TOL App!

Truster
November 18th, 2013, 04:04 PM
Much ado about nothing. I have seen KJB used quite frequently to identify the King James Bible. Now that you know at different areas of the country use different initials to describe the same thing, drop and move on.

It's not a King James Bible it's the King James version of the Bible. Always has been. The reason for that is King James commissioned it, but he didn't own the copyright, so possession was not a factor while commissioned version was and is.

You might not like the facts, but the facts remain.

Drop and walk on, bye…

Truster
November 18th, 2013, 04:10 PM
Peace and mercy to all who follow this rule—to the Israel of God. (Galatians 6:16 NIV)

And those who will walk by this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God. (Galatians 6:16 NASB)

Two groups became one in the NIV


Posted from the TOL App!

And a more accurate translation would be: And as many as march according to this canon, shalom be on them, and mercy, and upon the Yisra El of Elohim''.

The 'will' gives a future tense which is false.
''To all'' does the same and distorts the original meaning.

Jerry Shugart
November 18th, 2013, 04:16 PM
It's not a King James Bible it's the King James version of the Bible. Always has been.

Even those at the site named "The Offical King James Bible Online" refer to it as the King James Bible:


http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611-Bible/

Jerry Shugart
November 18th, 2013, 04:23 PM
Peace and mercy to all who follow this rule—to the Israel of God. (Galatians 6:16 NIV)

And those who will walk by this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God. (Galatians 6:16 NASB)

Two groups became one in the NIV

If you will look at the marginal note we can understand that the verse can be translated in the following way:


"Peace and mercy to all who follow this rule and to the Israel of God."

intojoy
November 18th, 2013, 04:24 PM
If you will look at the marinal notr we can understand that the verse can be understood in the following way:




"Peace and mercy to all who follow this rule and to the Israel of God."


Exactly - paraphrase not translation.


Posted from the TOL App!

Jerry Shugart
November 18th, 2013, 04:28 PM
Exactly - paraphrase not translation.


Does this translation not give the proper meaning of what is said in the Greek?:


"Peace and mercy to all who follow this rule and to the Israel of God."

CabinetMaker
November 18th, 2013, 04:33 PM
It's not a King James Bible it's the King James version of the Bible. Always has been. The reason for that is King James commissioned it, but he didn't own the copyright, so possession was not a factor while commissioned version was and is.

You might not like the facts, but the facts remain.

Drop and walk on, bye…
You ignored part of what I said. Here it is again for your edification: Now that you know at different areas of the country use different initials to describe the same thing, drop and move on.

CabinetMaker
November 18th, 2013, 04:36 PM
Exactly - paraphrase not translation.


Posted from the TOL App!
Translation requires paraphrase. Frequently there is no single in word in English for a word in another language. When that happens, you must translate the meaning of the word which is a paraphrase.

For a simple exercise, here is a word in German. Please provide the English word that exactly conveys the same meaning.

German:
Fahrvergnügen

Jerry Shugart
November 18th, 2013, 04:38 PM
Speaking of translations, all of them but one mistranslates the following verse, including the NIV:


"And with that he breathed on them and said, 'Receive the Holy Spirit'" (Jn.20:22; NIV).

It is impossible that this translation is correct. That is because in the following passage the Lord Jesus said that the Holy Spirit would not be sent until He departed to be with the Father and He had not yet departed to be with the Father when He said those words:


"But now I go my way to him that sent me; and none of you asketh me, Whither goest thou? But because I have said these things unto you, sorrow hath filled your heart. Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you" (Jn.16:5-7).

It is impossible that they had received "the Holy Spirit" because the Lord Jesus had not yet departed to be with the Father when He spoke the words at John 20:22. Therefore the correct translation of John 20:22 is as follows:


"And saying this, He exhales and is saying to them, 'Get holy spirit!' " (Jn.20:22; CLV).

intojoy
November 18th, 2013, 04:40 PM
Does this translation not give the proper meaning of what is said in the Greek?:




"Peace and mercy to all who follow this rule and to the Israel of God."


What is the context? Who are the Judaizers? What was accomplished and added by the Jerusalem elders in acts 15?

There are the saved Gentiles "peace be upon them that follow this rule" and then there are the saved Jews, the Remnant of believing Israel, the "Israel of God."

If I want to teach that there was only one people of God and that Israel and the church are always the same Old Testament and New; NIV baby!

Posted from the TOL App!

Spitfire
November 18th, 2013, 04:42 PM
A better interpretation exercise is to ask someone what it means when someone, according to a literal translation from German, has "nothing on the hat" with something.

Or how you should react when someone says in German what literally means he or she is going to "bring you around".

:p

And let's not even get into the fact that English is a rather unique language in that a single surface structure could correspond to such a large number of possible deep structures.

Ich habe die Nase voll gehabt! Ich bringe euch alle um!

intojoy
November 18th, 2013, 04:44 PM
Translation requires paraphrase. Frequently there is no single in word in English for a word in another language. When that happens, you must translate the meaning of the word which is a paraphrase.

For a simple exercise, here is a word in German. Please provide the English word that exactly conveys the same meaning.

German:
Fahrvergnügen


What's a transliteration vs a translation?


Posted from the TOL App!

Jerry Shugart
November 18th, 2013, 04:46 PM
If I want to teach that there was only one people of God and that Israel and the church are always the same Old Testament and New; NIV baby!

But the word "and" makes it plain that those who are described as the "Israel of God" do not belong to the same group spoken of in the first part of the verse:


"Peace and mercy to all who follow this rule and to the Israel of God."

CabinetMaker
November 18th, 2013, 04:58 PM
A better interpretation exercise is to ask someone what it means when someone, according to a literal translation from German, has "nothing on the hat" with something.

Or how you should react when someone says in German what literally means he or she is going to "bring you around".

:p

And let's not even get into the fact that English is a rather unique language in that a single surface structure could correspond to such a large number of possible deep structures.

Ich habe die Nase voll gehabt! Ich bringe euch alle um!

My cousin was visiting London years ago and she met a nice bloke that invited her to dinner. Imagine her surprise when he said, "I'll knock you up around 6:00." True story!

Christian Liberty
November 18th, 2013, 07:46 PM
Why am I not surprised?

I was given an NIV when I was converted and it fell apart with use within 18 months. One day I was in Genesis and came to the verse, And God said to Noah, ''go into the ark''….I was not happy about this and could find no comfort. I checked with a KJV and discovered that the Eternal had said to Noah, ''COME into the ark''. I had great comfort in this and wondered what else my be amiss that would affect my soul. There are of course thousands of omissions and perversions in the NIV.

Are you kidding me? Seriously? You think the difference between "Go into the ark' and "Come into the ark" can affect your soul? Lol!

KJV-Only Cultists use the NIV as a strawman. The KJV is a word-for word translation, while the NIV is a thought for thought translation. So yes, the KJV is better than the NIV. But there are other word for word translations, like the ESV, NASB, NKJV, Holman Christian Standard, etc.

intojoy
November 18th, 2013, 08:11 PM
But the word "and" makes it plain that those who are described as the "Israel of God" do not belong to the same group spoken of in the first part of the verse:




"Peace and mercy to all who follow this rule and to the Israel of God."


Peace and mercy to all who follow this rule—to the Israel of God. (Galatians 6:16 NIV)

Where's the "and"?


Posted from the TOL App!

Nick M
November 18th, 2013, 08:12 PM
I see the resident sodomy apologist is back....The NIV is terrible and has many issues, as pointed out in the link offered.

Christian Liberty
November 18th, 2013, 11:22 PM
I see the resident sodomy apologist is back....The NIV is terrible and has many issues, as pointed out in the link offered.

What the crap did my post have to do with sodomy?

My condemnation of the KJV-Only cult is in no way an endorsement of the NIV.

I didn't read the link. I don't read cultist crap generally (occasionally I do for entertainment value, but generally not.) But I agree the NIV is not ideal. The 2011 version is worse than the 1984, to my understanding, but they're both not great. They're both thought-for-thought translations. Whereas the ideal is to translate God's words word-for-word whenever possible.

The thing is, the AV is NOT the only translation that does this. The ESV, NASB, Holman Christian Standard, and others do translate word-for-word.

Judson50
November 18th, 2013, 11:29 PM
http://www.av1611.org/niv.html

So what's your take in the New Living Translation?

Christian Liberty
November 18th, 2013, 11:34 PM
Peace and mercy to all who follow this rule—to the Israel of God. (Galatians 6:16 NIV)

Where's the "and"?


Posted from the TOL App!

I think Paul was saying those who followed the rule ARE the Israel of God. I'll check the ESV and NASB and then let you know.


So what's your take in the New Living Translation?

The NLT is even worse, its a blatant paraphrase. Nothing wrong with reading it for pleasure, but it isn't really scripture at that point.

JosephR
November 18th, 2013, 11:34 PM
Isn't the new covenant based on the spirit? 2Cor 3:2-3.

New covenant Hebrews 8:8

Judson50
November 18th, 2013, 11:38 PM
The NLT is even worse, its a blatant paraphrase. Nothing wrong with reading it for pleasure, but it isn't really scripture at that point.

not the response I was expecting.

NASB?
ESV?

intojoy
November 18th, 2013, 11:41 PM
I think Paul was saying those who followed the rule ARE the Israel of God. I'll check the ESV and NASB and then let you know.







The NLT is even worse, its a blatant paraphrase. Nothing wrong with reading it for pleasure, but it isn't really scripture at that point.


Let me know my arse I'm not intoreplacementtheology no way.


Posted from the TOL App!

intojoy
November 18th, 2013, 11:43 PM
Translation requires paraphrase. Frequently there is no single in word in English for a word in another language. When that happens, you must translate the meaning of the word which is a paraphrase.

For a simple exercise, here is a word in German. Please provide the English word that exactly conveys the same meaning.

German:
Fahrvergnügen


Fahrverhnugen - cabinet faker


Posted from the TOL App!

Christian Liberty
November 18th, 2013, 11:44 PM
not the response I was expecting.

NASB?
ESV?

I prefer the ESV. The NASB is rock solid as well. The KJV is perfectly fine as well, but I find it difficult to read since its written in Early Modern English.

My study Bible is ESV as well, so that's what I use.

You have to remember though that the Bible was really written in Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic. So no English translation is going to do the best possible translation of every single word. I'm not necessarily saying its "wrong" to use a thought for thought translation either. I have when I didn't have something else available. I don't have a problem with the NLT for pleasure-reading (I used to have one as well.) But when it comes to serious study, it simply isn't as accurate.

Accuracy is based on two things, the quality of the manuscripts the translation was based on, and how the translation is done (Whether each individual word is translated, or each thought.) With these things, all I really know is what I've heard second-hand from people who have read scholars on the subject. To my understanding, the manuscripts used by the ESV, and NASB are considered more accurate than those used by the KJV and NKJV. But obviously other scholars think different. This isn't something that I know that much about.

But the KJV movement is crazy because they act as if God actually spoke English in the Bible! The bottom line is, first of all, the Bible wasn't written in English, and second of all, the KJV wasn't even the first English translation to begin with. So why is the KJV so special compared to other versions? It isn't.

Judson50
November 18th, 2013, 11:47 PM
I prefer the ESV. The NASB is rock solid as well. The KJV is perfectly fine as well, but I find it difficult to read since its written in Early Modern English.

My study Bible is ESV as well, so that's what I use.

You have to remember though that the Bible was really written in Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic. So no English translation is going to do the best possible translation of every single word. I'm not necessarily saying its "wrong" to use a thought for thought translation either. I have when I didn't have something else available. I don't have a problem with the NLT for pleasure-reading (I used to have one as well.) But when it comes to serious study, it simply isn't as accurate.

Accuracy is based on two things, the quality of the manuscripts the translation was based on, and how the translation is done (Whether each individual word is translated, or each thought.) With these things, all I really know is what I've heard second-hand from people who have read scholars on the subject. To my understanding, the manuscripts used by the ESV, and NASB are considered more accurate than those used by the KJV and NKJV. But obviously other scholars think different. This isn't something that I know that much about.

But the KJV movement is crazy because they act as if God actually spoke English in the Bible! The bottom line is, first of all, the Bible wasn't written in English, and second of all, the KJV wasn't even the first English translation to begin with. So why is the KJV so special compared to other versions? It isn't.

Thanks for the exposition. I happen to love bibliology.

I just like to know how KJVO's opinions on such translations. But seeing that isn't you (after this response) i apologize.

Christian Liberty
November 18th, 2013, 11:49 PM
Let me know my arse I'm not intoreplacementtheology no way.


Posted from the TOL App!

What do you mean by "replacement theology." There's only one body of Christ, intojoy. There aren't two ways to heaven, either through the Old Testament Laws or through Christ. The ONLY way to be saved is through the blood of Jesus Christ. Jews who trust in Christ and Gentiles who trust in Christ are in the same body.

Christian Liberty
November 18th, 2013, 11:50 PM
Thanks for the exposition. I happen to love bibliology.

I just like to know how KJVO's opinions on such translations. But seeing that isn't you (after this response) i apologize.

No worries. You probably know more about this than me, too. But I'm definitely NOT a KJVO-advocate. Heck no:p

But as I said, the KJV is fine too. For the most part I think any word for word translation is fine (And yes, I know as Cabinetmaker pointed out, no translation is ALWAYS word for word, but some are much closer to that ideal than others, and thus there's a continuum. The more word for word a translation is, the more accurate it is.)

Christian Liberty
November 18th, 2013, 11:53 PM
Regarding Galatians 6:16, it seems to me that the word for word translations are less clear than the NIV. I think this is a textbook case of what I'm talking about with the NIV, somebody inserting a theological bias into it:

http://biblehub.com/galatians/6-16.htm

I actually agree with the theological bias that I think the NIV translator showed there, but that doesn't change the fact that it shouldn't have been interposed into the text.

Jerry Shugart
November 19th, 2013, 12:12 AM
Peace and mercy to all who follow this rule—to the Israel of God. (Galatians 6:16 NIV)

Where's the "and"?

Check the note in the margin:


"Peace and mercy to all who follow this rule—to* the Israel of God" (Gal.6:16).

* Or rule and to

Zeke
November 19th, 2013, 12:49 AM
New covenant Hebrews 8:8

Left (OT) and right (NT) side of the temple (brain), "made without hands" Acts 7:48, 17:24, Isaiah 66:1, 2Cor 5:1, Matt 11:25.

JosephR
November 19th, 2013, 12:52 AM
Left (OT) and right (NT) side of the temple (brain), "made without hands" Acts 7:48, 17:24, Isaiah 66:1, 2Cor 5:1, Matt 11:25.

oki see,but you have no scripture that says a new covenant other then Hebrews 8:8 am I correct?

Zeke
November 19th, 2013, 01:23 AM
oki see,but you have no scripture that says a new covenant other then Hebrews 8:8 am I correct?

Yea I can't get it to speak, its just ink on some paper, new testament of the spirit then! written on the heart that does speak to me, anyway body science is what the scripture is about not bricks made with straw, or a body bleeding on a literal cross for my salvation, that crucifixion takes place in Golgotha, the skull.

Truster
November 19th, 2013, 01:31 AM
So what's your take in the New Living Translation?

Hi Judson,

The New Living Translation (NLT) is straight from Hell. On their official website, NLT advertises with the slogan, "Accuracy you can trust." Unfortunately, the NLT is not very accurate. The fact that the word "begotten" has been wrongfully removed from John 3:16 should be enough reason for every Christian to trash their NLT.

More here:

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

I don't know anything about the organisation who posted this, but it's not their work. All that they have said is available elsewhere. What they have posted is true and can easily be verified.

Blessings, T.

JosephR
November 19th, 2013, 01:31 AM
Yea I can't get it to speak, its just ink on some paper, new testament of the spirit then! written on the heart that does speak to me, anyway body science is what the scripture is about not bricks made with straw, or a body bleeding on a literal cross for my salvation, that crucifixion takes place in Golgotha, the skull.



HAHAH very nice.. I like science too.. Jesus said my kingdom is not of this world. And I believe him as you seem to also.

Truster
November 19th, 2013, 02:22 AM
Yea I can't get it to speak, its just ink on some paper, new testament of the spirit then! written on the heart that does speak to me, anyway body science is what the scripture is about not bricks made with straw, or a body bleeding on a literal cross for my salvation, that crucifixion takes place in Golgotha, the skull.

You seem to be denying the historical death of Messiah. Do you also deny his resurrection?

CabinetMaker
November 19th, 2013, 08:53 AM
Fahrverhnugen - cabinet faker


Posted from the TOL App!
With all the tools of the internet at your disposal the best you can do is an insult that a 7th grader would be embarrassed to use.

False Prophet
November 19th, 2013, 09:15 AM
Translations have their mistakes.

Truster
November 19th, 2013, 09:16 AM
Translations have their mistakes.

Amen!

Nice to meet you FP.

Truster
November 19th, 2013, 09:18 AM
With all the tools of the internet at your disposal the best you can do is an insult that a 7th grader would be embarrassed to use.

That is so feeble an insult it makes you wonder if its worth forgiving?

The bigger the insult, the bigger the blessing for the insulted.

Zeke
November 19th, 2013, 09:41 AM
You seem to be denying the historical death of Messiah. Do you also deny his resurrection?

The literal version of a human sacrifice yes, the type and shadow verses the real holy land and temple, which is the human body, the crucifixion takes place in the skull, The crucifixion happened, and happens at a place called Golgotha, which means place of the skull, and Mt Calvary also means, cranium, skull.

All the symbols of the temple and ark can be found in the human brain, the holy of holies in the temple made without hands.

Truster
November 19th, 2013, 09:47 AM
Zeke,

You have the same or at least similar problem that Mohammed had. He just couldn't bring himself to believe that the Eternal Father would subject His Son, His only begotten Son to such suffering, such humiliation….unto Him who hast loved us and washed us from sin, unto Him be the glory forever amen, amen and amen.

Jason0047
November 19th, 2013, 10:23 AM
I believe the King James is the perfect divinely inspired preserved Word of God for our world language for today (Which is English by the way). This in no way changes the previous translations that have come before in being perfect at one time (Hebrew (OT), Greek (NT), and Latin). For all these particular translations all say the same thing. Now, this is not the same texts that Wescott and Hort use (Which most Modern Translations are based upon). That is another vine or source.

However, that said, I read Modern Translations all the time because I view them as if I am panning thru the dirt to get to the gold. For they are helpful in updating the language when comparing it with the KJV. However, they are not my final Word of authority because they add, eliminate, and twist passages all the time. In fact, the devil puts his name within Modern Translations trying to be like the Most High. Don't have a clue what I am talking about?

Well, many Bible versions say that it is the dragon who is standing on the sea shore in Revelation. This is just evil and wrong.

See Parallel Version for Revelation 13:1 here...

http://biblehub.com/revelation/13-1.htm

See, if you know anything about Bible language, standing on something means that you "own it"; And the devil wants to own you. In the King James, John is standing on the seashore. Yet in many Bible versions the dragon (i.e. the devil) is standing on the seashore.

Why is this a problem?

Lets look at...

Genesis 22:17

"That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies;"Did you catch that? God says to Abraham that He will multiply his seed as the stars of the heaven and as the sand which is upon the seashore where he will then possess the gate of his enemies (i.e. the devil and his kingdom). The apostle John who wrote Revelation was Jewish and he was the promised seed of Genesis 22 standing on the seashore in Revelation 13. It was not the dragon or the devil standing on the seashore.

For certain Modern Versions eliminate the part of the passage in Revelation 13:1 that says that John is standing on the seashore (When he refers to himself as "I") (This would include the NIV, and the NASB).

Jason0047
November 19th, 2013, 10:33 AM
For the devil wants to replace himself with being like the most high. So this is what he does subtly in all of the modern versions. In all your mystery religions you have a son who is the offspring of a human female and a pagan god. In other words in most of your mystery religions you will have a son of the gods. For who is Tammuz (Ezekiel 8:13-14)? Well, if you do not know, Tammuz was a demigod or the son of the gods (i.e. offspring of a human / pagan god hybrid) who was slain and had been killed and who was in hades. In fact, here is a list of beings who were born from one of the gods and from a human (which was usually a female):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_demigods

Why is this important?

For even in the ESV you have the devil and his Mystery pagan religion sneaking in trying to be like the Son of God by putting his stamp of paganism on the ESV by claiming he is the son of the gods (little "g").

What am I talking about? Lets check out a passage in the ESV to see see where I am coming from.

Daniel 3:25 ESV

"He answered and said, “But I see four men unbound, walking in the midst of the fire, and they are not hurt; and the appearance of the fourth is like a son of the gods.”"This is a bold denial of the Son of God in the Old Testament. Jesus is NOT the son of the gods. Jesus is the Son of God!!! In fact, both Nathaniel and Peter admit that Jesus was the Son of God and not the son of the gods.

Oh, and if you think Nebuchadnezzar did not know who this Son of God was, you would be mistaken. He knew exactly who he was because he said that Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego were servants of the "MOST HIGH GOD"!!!! This is who the devil wants to be like. The MOST HIGHT GOD! It says so right in Isaiah that the devil wants to be like the MOST HIGH (Isaiah 14:14). So he replaces the Son of God with his pagan title of being like...

The son of the gods (little "g").

Truster
November 19th, 2013, 10:38 AM
I believe the King James is the perfect divinely inspired preserved Word of God for our world language for today (Which is English by the way). This in no way changes the previous translations that have come before in being perfect at one time (Hebrew (OT), Greek (NT), and Latin). For all these particular translations all say the same thing. Now, this is not the same texts that Wescott and Hort use (Which most Modern Translations are based upon). That is another vine or source.

However, that said, I read Modern Translations all the time because I view them as if I am panning thru the dirt to get to the gold. For they are helpful in updating the language when comparing it with the KJV. However, they are not my final Word of authority because they add, eliminate, and twist passages all the time. In fact, the devil puts his name within Modern Translations trying to be like the Most High. Don't have a clue what I am talking about?

Well, many Bible versions say that it is the dragon who is standing on the sea shore in Revelation. This is just evil and wrong.

See Parallel Version for Revelation 13:1 here...

http://biblehub.com/revelation/13-1.htm

See, if you know anything about Bible language, standing on something means that you "own it"; And the devil wants to own you. In the King James, John is standing on the seashore. Yet in many Bible versions the dragon (i.e. the devil) is standing on the seashore.

Why is this a problem?

Lets look at...

Genesis 22:17

"That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies;"Did you catch that? God says to Abraham that He will multiply his seed as the stars of the heaven and as the sand which is upon the seashore where he will then possess the gate of his enemies (i.e. the devil and his kingdom). The apostle John who wrote Revelation was Jewish and he was the promised seed of Genesis 22 standing on the seashore in Revelation 13. It was not the dragon or the devil standing on the seashore.

For certain Modern Versions eliminate the part of the passage in Revelation 13:1 that says that John is standing on the seashore (When he refers to himself as "I") (This would include the NIV, and the NASB).

Just checked my NIV and Rev 13:1 has, ''And I saw a beast…''

PS nice to meet you Jason.

Jason0047
November 19th, 2013, 10:48 AM
Just checked my NIV and Rev 13:1 has, ''And I saw a beast…''

Oh, yes. There are different NIV translations. The NIV translation for Revelation 13:1 at Biblehub and Biblegateway (Which are two of the most popular online Bible reading sites) lists the word "dragon."

Special Note: Biblegateway does have several NIV translations, though. But if one were to do a google search for "Revelation 13:1 NIV Biblegateway" the NIV translation that mentions "dragon" comes up.


PS nice to meet you Jason.

Thank you. It is nice to meet you, too. I have a passion for this topic because I believe that one is born again by the Word of God (i.e. water). For faith comes by hearing the Word of God (Romans 10:17) and we are sanctified with washing of the water of the Word as Scripture states (Ephesians 5:26). Although I believe the KJV to be the divinely inspired Word for our day, I do understand people's frustration in reading it sometimes; For my Christian fiance who currently lives in Brazil prefers the Modern Translations because she has a hard time understanding the Old English in the KJV. I do not blame her, because sometimes I run into passages that can be a little challenging at times, too. Especially more in the Old Testament. So as I said before, I read Modern Translations as if I am sifting thru the dirt to get to the gold (that lines up with the KJV).

Side Note:

Obviously I believe anyone can be born again by hearing the words of most translations today. However, when it comes to sanctifying oneself with the washing of the Word, I believe the pure Word of God (That has been preserved for our world language today) is the best way to going about doing that.

Jason0047
November 19th, 2013, 10:56 AM
Three Scriptural Reasons to Trust in A Perfect Word Today.

#1. God's Word claims that it is perfect
God's Word claims that it is perfect (Psalm 12:6 KJV) (Psalm 119:140 KJV) (Proverbs 30:5 KJV) and that it will be preserved for all generations (Psalm 12:7 KJV) and it will stand forever (Isaiah 40:8 KJV) (1 Peter 1:25 KJV). Therefore, seeing Scripture plainly states these facts, it then becomes an issue of a test of your faith in God's Word (See the test the devil gave to Eve in Genesis 3:1 KJV); 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). In other words, do you believe you hold the very words of God within your hands like the disciples did?

#2. KJV vs. Modern Translations
A simple side by side comparison of the KJV vs Modern Translations shows us the devil tries to take out key points in important discussions within the Bible (Which can effect doctrine). For example: In Romans 7 Paul talks from the Jew's perspective in keeping the Old Testament Law (Which leads to problems), and he gives us the climax or heart of his message as a solution in Romans 8:1 KJV. Now, certain modern translations have eliminated "who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." Eliminating this passage destroys the whole thrust of Paul's argument. Walking in the Spirit is the key to being in Christ Jesus. You eliminate that and you destroy Paul's argument. Also, 1 John 5:7 KJV is the only verse in the Bible that is the clearest and most concise teaching on the Godhead (i.e. the Trinity).

#3. Biblical Numerics
Bible Numbers that glorify God and His Word. (Note: These are not equidistant letter sequences or numbers that attempt to get one to have a special dream, or to divine the future in some way - Striving to foretell the future is forbidden in the Bible). Numbers are something that we deal with in our every day life and all things glorify God. So obviously the numbers in God's Word would naturally glorify Him in some way. What am I talking about? Check out this video on Numbers & the Greek New Testament.

8hOKA9fR2p4
Also, here is a recent post of mine on the topic of Bible Numbers.

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3586963&postcount=61

In fact, here is a great study on Bible Numbers based off of the King James.

http://www.hiddenhillssgbaptistchurch.org/images/Articles%20by%20Subject/Books/G.%20E.%20Jones/That%20Ye%20May%20Marvel%20or%20The%20Significance %20of%20Bible%20Numbers.pdf

Also, here is a video series by Mike Hoggard that talks about the number 7 in the King James.

EZRjZBhRlhs
6vl792szv1A
Now, while I may not agree with Mike on everything he teaches in the Bible nor on the way he teaches Bible numbers in every example, I have found that he has made some startling discoveries. Discoveries that do not appear in the modern translations but only in the King James.

Important Note:

Also, I want to add that sometimes these numbers match up with Blue Letter Bible and other times they do not. This is because BLB uses a different version of the KJV I believe. If you download Mike Hoggard's free software search program from his website, you can verify the numbers (in his study) with his program here...

http://www.dewtronics.com/KingJamesPureBibleSearch/

Oh, and Mike does not make an error in one of his calculations in the first video and I do believe he mentions his mistake in a later subsequent video.

Also, in addition, here is one thread I started for point #1, too.

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=92336

Knight
November 19th, 2013, 10:59 AM
http://www.av1611.org/niv.htmlWhen you start a thread please add some content to the thread. Add your thoughts, your opinions... something!

Merely dropping a link is something we frown upon.

Thanks in advance for your cooperation.

Truster
November 19th, 2013, 11:05 AM
When you start a thread please add some content to the thread. Add your thoughts, your opinions... something!

Merely dropping a link is something we frown upon.

Thanks in advance for your cooperation.

Thanks for your patience Knight. I'll certainly add something in future.

Hope you don't mind me rocking the boat? I think a few people have got wet, but I'm sure they'll soon dry out…I hope.

Zeke
November 19th, 2013, 11:19 AM
Zeke,

You have the same or at least similar problem that Mohammed had. He just couldn't bring himself to believe that the Eternal Father would subject His Son, His only begotten Son to such suffering, such humiliation….unto Him who hast loved us and washed us from sin, unto Him be the glory forever amen, amen and amen.

Where do you think IS RA EL came from? your hoodwink by religious spin doctors that take allegory as literal, your free to show me the historical proof of Moses, David, or Solomon, pretty much a rewrite of mythology from the ancient schools of hermetic teaching, and astrology that the church has twisted into evil.

Who do you think the man with the water pitcher is? our the upper room? why did Jesus major in fish? could it have anything to do with the starting of the age two thousand years ago? why would Jacob name the place he seen God after a gland in the human brain, why does Jesus say cast your nets on the right side of the ship, why does the catch add up to 9? the number of Conscience, or Christ Conscience, 144 thousand same number, the painting of the last supper is about the zodiac etc.............

Zeke
November 19th, 2013, 11:22 AM
Thanks for your patience Knight. I'll certainly add something in future.

Hope you don't mind me rocking the boat? I think a few people have got wet, but I'm sure they'll soon dry out…I hope.

When are you going to get out of the shallow end? do you look in the mirror every two minutes?

HisServant
November 19th, 2013, 11:25 AM
http://www.av1611.org/niv.html

So I assume you are Anglican or Episcopalian and adhere to all its doctrines?... if not, you are just plain stupid for using the KJV.

The fact remains that the AV is one of the most biased translations of all time.

Truster
November 19th, 2013, 11:29 AM
Where do you think IS RA EL came from? your hoodwink by religious spin doctors that take allegory as literal, your free to show me the historical proof of Moses, David, or Solomon, pretty much a rewrite of mythology from the ancient schools of hermetic teaching, and astrology that the church has twisted into evil.

Who do you think the man with the water pitcher is? our the upper room? why did Jesus major in fish? could it have anything to do with the starting of the age two thousand years ago? why would Jacob name the place he seen God after a gland in the human brain, why does Jesus say cast your nets on the right side of the ship, why does the catch add up to 9? the number of Conscience, or Christ Conscience, 144 thousand same number, the painting of the last supper is about the zodiac etc.............

The term is Yisra El and means ruled of El.

Jerry Shugart
November 19th, 2013, 11:31 AM
[Also, I want to add that sometimes these numbers match up with Blue Letter Bible and other times they do not. This is because BLB uses a different version of the KJV I believe.

So one version of the KJB has something different in it than does in another version.

How can they both be without error?

Are there some versions of the KJB which are without error while other versions have errors?

How are we to know which version is without error?

Perhaps the following verse was taken from the KJB that does contain errors:


"After the number of the days in which ye searched the land, even forty days, each day for a year, shall ye bear your iniquities, even forty years, and ye shall know my breach of promise" (Num.14:34).

Since God will not break His promises then we can know that this translation is in error.

Truster
November 19th, 2013, 11:33 AM
So I assume you are Anglican or Episcopalian and adhere to all its doctrines?... if not, you are just plain stupid for using the KJV.

The fact remains that the AV is one of the most biased translations of all time.

When you assume you make an *** out of u but not me

The word that has been *** is the Biblical name for donkey. You Americans spell a word wrong and then call it a cuss word.

HisServant
November 19th, 2013, 11:36 AM
When you assume you make an *** out of u but not me

The word that has been *** is the Biblical name for donkey. You Americans spell a word wrong and then call it a cuss word.

Well.. are you Anglican or Episcopalian?.. if not, why are you using their bible?

Zeke
November 19th, 2013, 11:39 AM
The term is Yisra El and means ruled of El.

What civilization did those deities come from? you seem to have skipped over the historical proof, I understand it requires blind faith.

intojoy
November 19th, 2013, 11:42 AM
With all the tools of the internet at your disposal the best you can do is an insult that a 7th grader would be embarrassed to use.


Not an insult, just a light hearted joke. Here's a better word to look up: Kristallnacht



Posted from the TOL App!

Truster
November 19th, 2013, 11:43 AM
What civilization did those deities come from? you seem to have skipped over the historical proof, I understand it requires blind faith.

Faith is simply psyching up the mental attributes. Even you are capable of that.

Jason0047
November 19th, 2013, 12:27 PM
At least the NIV does not teach that the Lord will break His promises, as does the KJB:


"After the number of the days in which ye searched the land, even forty days, each day for a year, shall ye bear your iniquities, even forty years, and ye shall know my breach of promise" (Num.14:34; KJV).

The NIV does not make that error:


"For forty years—one year for each of the forty days you explored the land—you will suffer for your sins and know what it is like to have me against you’ " (Num.14:34; NIV).

You are grasping at straws with this one. There is no mistranslation here. Here is what

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown says in their commentary:


"Ye shall know my breach of promise—that is, in consequence of your violation of the covenant betwixt you and Me, by breaking the terms of it, it shall be null and void on My part, as I shall withhold the blessings I promised in that covenant to confer on you on condition of your obedience."In other words, God owns the punishment or the breach of His promises. So God can say "my breach of promise." For those who break God's Laws forfeit the promises of God. They will instead experience what it is like to know His breach of promise or punishments for disobeying His Laws.

ccfromsc
November 19th, 2013, 12:36 PM
Wow! Is it me or is it not just insulting but blasphemous when someone calls a translation of Bible a "PerVersion?" What of the KJV? 28 "revisions" of it and not one here dare mentions that? Has anyone ever looked to see if the KJV ADDED to the basic text?

Truster
November 19th, 2013, 12:40 PM
Wow! Is it me or is it not just insulting but blasphemous when someone calls a translation of Bible a "PerVersion?" What of the KJV? 28 "revisions" of it and not one here dare mentions that? Has anyone ever looked to see if the KJV ADDED to the basic text?

The KJV is not perfect.

Jason0047
November 19th, 2013, 12:49 PM
So one version of the KJB has something different in it than does in another version.

How can they both be without error?

Are there some versions of the KJB which are without error while other versions have errors?

How are we to know which version is without error?


Watch this video here:
tj-XtqtMSGw&list=PL16B2149EE5E54979

And or read this article here:
http://www.chick.com/reading/books/158/158_05.asp

Christian Liberty
November 19th, 2013, 12:51 PM
Jason, your problem is you're comparing the other versions to the KJV, when you really should be comparing all the versions to the original manuscripts.

Jason0047
November 19th, 2013, 12:52 PM
The KJV is not perfect.

I believe it to be perfect because God's Word says that His Word is perfect and that it would be preserved for all generations. This is obviously not a salvation issue, but I believe that there is a reason why some do not believe in a perfect Word for our day, though.

Jason0047
November 19th, 2013, 12:53 PM
Jason, your problem is you're comparing the other versions to the KJV, when you really should be comparing all the versions to the original manuscripts.

That's the problem. Nobody has the original manuscripts anymore. The originals that the disciples had written do not exist. Their only copies and not all copies say the same thing.

HisServant
November 19th, 2013, 12:54 PM
The KJV is not perfect.

And its got quite a few unique ecclesiastic and doctrinal biases that favor the Anglican and Catholic Churches.

Some examples would be.

The translators were barred from producing any verses that ran against the then doctrines of the Anglican Church.

The translators were barred from translating ekklesia as congregation (they were bound to use the word church which is inaccurate).. they also had to retain the titles given to church officials (bishop, etc.) instead of just plain 'elder' which is more accurate.

The translators were also barred from changing any of the formal names.. i.e. Christ had to be translated Jesus instead of Joshua (which is more accurate as far as pronouncement goes).

And I could go on.

Jerry Shugart
November 19th, 2013, 12:54 PM
You are grasping at straws with this one. There is no mistranslation here. Here is what

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown says in their commentary:


" For those who break God's Laws forfeit the promises of God. They will instead experience what it is like to know His breach of promise or punishments for disobeying His Laws.'

If someone does not meet the conditions of a "conditional" promise then the one who made the promise cannot be said to have broken his promise.

Besides, the Scriptures make it plain that the Lord did not break His promise:


" Blessed be the LORD, that hath given rest unto his people Israel, according to all that he promised: there hath not failed one word of all his good promise, which he promised by the hand of Moses his servant" (1 Ki.8:56).

Christian Liberty
November 19th, 2013, 12:55 PM
That's the problem. Nobody has the original manuscripts anymore. The originals that the disciples had written do not exist. Their only copies and not all copies say the same thing.

Yeah, I know, we don't know for sure. That doesn't make the KJV inspired anymore than any other translation.

What about Spanish people? Or French people? Russians? Chinese? What translation of there's is inspired?

I have no issues with the KJV. use it if you like it. But that translation isn't any better than any other word-for-word translation.

Jason0047
November 19th, 2013, 12:55 PM
Wow! Is it me or is it not just insulting but blasphemous when someone calls a translation of Bible a "PerVersion?" What of the KJV? 28 "revisions" of it and not one here dare mentions that? Has anyone ever looked to see if the KJV ADDED to the basic text?

Do you think certain versions of the NIV are correct when it says that the "dragon" is standing on the seashore?

Do you think it is the dragon standing on the seashore is it John standing on the seashore? Making sure you have the right understanding on this passage is a huge difference. In fact, if your interested, please check out what I written on this previously by clicking on the following spoiler button.

I believe the King James is the perfect divinely inspired preserved Word of God for our world language for today (Which is English by the way). This in no way changes the previous translations that have come before in being perfect at one time (Hebrew (OT), Greek (NT), and Latin). For all these particular translations all say the same thing. Now, this is not the same texts that Wescott and Hort use (Which most Modern Translations are based upon). That is another vine or source.

However, that said, I read Modern Translations all the time because I view them as if I am panning thru the dirt to get to the gold. For they are helpful in updating the language when comparing it with the KJV. However, they are not my final Word of authority because they add, eliminate, and twist passages all the time. In fact, the devil puts his name within Modern Translations trying to be like the Most High. Don't have a clue what I am talking about?

Well, many Bible versions say that it is the dragon who is standing on the sea shore in Revelation. This is just evil and wrong.

See Parallel Version for Revelation 13:1 here...

http://biblehub.com/revelation/13-1.htm

See, if you know anything about Bible language, standing on something means that you "own it"; And the devil wants to own you. In the King James, John is standing on the seashore. Yet in many Bible versions the dragon (i.e. the devil) is standing on the seashore.

Why is this a problem?

Lets look at...

Genesis 22:17

"That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies;"Did you catch that? God says to Abraham that He will multiply his seed as the stars of the heaven and as the sand which is upon the seashore where he will then possess the gate of his enemies (i.e. the devil and his kingdom). The apostle John who wrote Revelation was Jewish and he was the promised seed of Genesis 22 standing on the seashore in Revelation 13. It was not the dragon or the devil standing on the seashore.

For certain Modern Versions eliminate the part of the passage in Revelation 13:1 that says that John is standing on the seashore (When he refers to himself as "I") (This would include the NIV, and the NASB).

Spitfire
November 19th, 2013, 12:56 PM
What's funny is there are a lot of "Luther only" people in Germany who think that's the Luther Bible only legitimate translation (and that God therefore speaks German, I suppose.) :p

HisServant
November 19th, 2013, 12:57 PM
I believe it to be perfect because God's Word says that His Word is perfect and that it would be preserved for all generations. This is obviously not a salvation issue, but I believe that there is a reason why some do not believe in a perfect Word for our day, though.

When Word is capitalized, it usually is referring to Jesus, not a written document.

In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God... etc.

The issue I have with your thinking is you use isolated verses to try and prove something you have already made up in your mind. (or been taught in error).

To someone that has the Holy Spirit's indwelling and guidance, any bible is perfect... because without his guidance, even a perfect bible is nothing more than words on a page that you have no hope of understanding.

Jason0047
November 19th, 2013, 01:02 PM
Yeah, I know, we don't know for sure. That doesn't make the KJV inspired anymore than any other translation.

What about Spanish people? Or French people? Russians? Chinese? What translation of there's is inspired?

I have no issues with the KJV. use it if you like it. But that translation isn't any better than any other word-for-word translation.

My fiancé lives in Brazil, so I am not ignorant of other Bibles in other countries. God said he would preserve His Word perfectly for all generations within His Word. If God did not do that, then he would have broke His promise. There can only be one perfect Word that was preserved for our day. There cannot be two different Bibles or Words of God saying two different things. God is not the author of confusion.

For the moment you have any one passage disagree with another passage in some way, it is another message. It is another Word of God.

This of course has no bearing on the gospel. For the gospel can be spread by just a couple verses within the Word.

Jason0047
November 19th, 2013, 01:03 PM
Q: How do we get our faith?

Jason0047
November 19th, 2013, 01:04 PM
A: The Word of God (Romans 10:17).

Jason0047
November 19th, 2013, 01:05 PM
Q: So if not all the Bibles say the same thing, then shouldn't there be different faiths based upon these different Bibles?

Jason0047
November 19th, 2013, 01:06 PM
Q: How many faiths does the Bible say that we have?

xAvarice
November 19th, 2013, 01:07 PM
Q: How many faiths does the Bible say that we have?

Too many.

Jason0047
November 19th, 2013, 01:07 PM
A: The Bible says we only have one faith (Ephesians 4:5).

Jason0047
November 19th, 2013, 01:08 PM
And I believe the Bible. For I am a "Bible believer"; And I am not a "Bible agnostic."

glorydaz
November 19th, 2013, 01:20 PM
Why am I not surprised?

I was given an NIV when I was converted and it fell apart with use within 18 months. One day I was in Genesis and came to the verse, And God said to Noah, ''go into the ark''….I was not happy about this and could find no comfort. I checked with a KJV and discovered that the Eternal had said to Noah, ''COME into the ark''. I had great comfort in this and wondered what else my be amiss that would affect my soul. There are of course thousands of omissions and perversions in the NIV.

Indeed. I have dubbed it the "Workers Bible". It seems to me they change scripture to tout the obedience of man instead of the obedience of ONE for man. Your example makes the point for me. "Go" is a command man must obey to be saved, and "Come" is an invitation man desires to obey to be saved. Big difference.

HisServant
November 19th, 2013, 01:25 PM
And I believe the Bible. For I am a "Bible believer"; And I am not a "Bible agnostic."

No, you believe what a bunch of 16th century Anglican scholars tell you to believe.

HisServant
November 19th, 2013, 01:26 PM
Q: How do we get our faith?

Its a gift from God.

intojoy
November 19th, 2013, 01:30 PM
You are grasping at straws with this one. There is no mistranslation here. Here is what



Jamieson-Fausset-Brown says in their commentary:




"Ye shall know my breach of promise—that is, in consequence of your violation of the covenant betwixt you and Me, by breaking the terms of it, it shall be null and void on My part, as I shall withhold the blessings I promised in that covenant to confer on you on condition of your obedience."In other words, God owns the punishment or the breach of His promises. So God can say "my breach of promise." For those who break God's Laws forfeit the promises of God. They will instead experience what it is like to know His breach of promise or punishments for disobeying His Laws.


These did not lose their salvation.


Posted from the TOL App!

glorydaz
November 19th, 2013, 01:37 PM
At least the NIV does not teach that the Lord will break His promises, as does the KJB:


"After the number of the days in which ye searched the land, even forty days, each day for a year, shall ye bear your iniquities, even forty years, and ye shall know my breach of promise" (Num.14:34; KJV).

The NIV does not make that error:


"For forty years—one year for each of the forty days you explored the land—you will suffer for your sins and know what it is like to have me against you’ " (Num.14:34; NIV).

You see error where none exists. Like any other verse, it must be read in context. Your translation from NIV tries to explain what needs no explanation. The contract was declared null and void by God. The reasons are clearly pointed out by Him.


Jeremiah 3:8
And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also.

Jerry Shugart
November 19th, 2013, 03:50 PM
And I believe the Bible. For I am a "Bible believer"; And I am not a "Bible agnostic."

Then please address what I said about your comments here:


You are grasping at straws with this one. There is no mistranslation here. Here is what

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown says in their commentary:


" For those who break God's Laws forfeit the promises of God. They will instead experience what it is like to know His breach of promise or punishments for disobeying His Laws.'

If someone does not meet the conditions of a "conditional" promise then the one who made the promise cannot be said to have broken his promise.

Besides, the Scriptures make it plain that the Lord did not break His promise:


" Blessed be the LORD, that hath given rest unto his people Israel, according to all that he promised: there hath not failed one word of all his good promise, which he promised by the hand of Moses his servant" (1 Ki.8:56).

Jason0047
November 19th, 2013, 03:55 PM
These did not lose their salvation.


Disobedience of God's Laws without repentance (followed by death) never leads to eternal life but only punishment in the after life.

Jude 1:4-7

4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.

5 I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not.

6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.

7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

2 Peter 2:6-10

6 And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly; The Godly will Be Delivered

7 And delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked:

8 (For that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful deeds; )

9 The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished:Profane and Blasphemous Seducers

10 But chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government. Presumptuous are they, selfwilled, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities.

2 Peter 2:12-13

"...and shall utterly perish in their own corruption; And shall receive the reward of unrighteousness, as they that count it pleasure to riot in the day time..."In fact, I double dog dare you to slowly read the rest of the chapter here.

http://biblehub.com/kjv/2_peter/2.htm

Don't just read it with OSAS glasses. Just read it from an objective standpoint.

Jason0047
November 19th, 2013, 03:57 PM
Then please address what I said about your comments here:

If someone does not meet the conditions of a "conditional" promise then the one who made the promise cannot be said to have broken his promise.

Besides, the Scriptures make it plain that the Lord did not break His promise:


" Blessed be the LORD, that hath given rest unto his people Israel, according to all that he promised: there hath not failed one word of all his good promise, which he promised by the hand of Moses his servant" (1 Ki.8:56).

I have already shown you according to Scripture what the passage is actually saying. It is up to you if you want to accept it or not.

For where you see error in the Scriptures, I see the Word of God as perfect and making sense as a whole (with verses referring back and forth to one another in beautiful harmony).

For the atheist sees errors in God's Word where none exist. Are you a "bible believer" or are you a "bible agnostic"?

For a "bible believer" just believes the Bible and does not question it or claim that it has errors.

And a "bible agnostic" claims that there may be a perfect Word of God somewhere or that it existed at one time. They are just not sure.

Jerry Shugart
November 19th, 2013, 04:11 PM
You see error where none exists. Like any other verse, it must be read in context. Your translation from NIV tries to explain what needs no explanation. The contract was declared null and void by God. The reasons are clearly pointed out by Him.


Jeremiah 3:8
And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also.

That has nothing to do with God making a promise. Instead, Israel committed adultery and therefore the Lord rightly gave her a bill of divorce.

That has nothing to do with the Lord breaking a promise.

Ig the Lord promises something and He does not follow through on that promise then that would mean He lied. And God cannot lie so He cannot breat His promises:


"In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began" (Titus 1:2).

I never thought I would see the day when believers would be arguing that God breaks His promises!


"God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?" (Num.23:19).

Jerry Shugart
November 19th, 2013, 04:20 PM
I have already shown you according to Scripture what the passage is actually saying. It is up to you if you want to accept it or not.

My friend, I searched and searched and you have not said even one word about the following verse which proves that the translation of Numbers 14:34 in the King James Bible is in error:


"Blessed be the LORD, that hath given rest unto his people Israel, according to all that he promised: there hath not failed one word of all his good promise, which he promised by the hand of Moses his servant" (1 Ki.8:56).

nikolai_42
November 19th, 2013, 04:40 PM
Q: How do we get our faith?


A: The Word of God (Romans 10:17).

You missed a critical step here, Jason. Faith comes by hearing. And hearing comes by the Word of God. And if you read Romans 10, you see Paul detailing Israel's hardness of heart, unbelief and deaf ears. It's important, I think, that he quotes Isaiah who was told to make the people deaf by prophesying (Isaiah 6:10). So it was God who created that situation after Israel provoked God to His face multiple times. And in the state of deafness, one doesn't just decide to hear and believe - one must first have his ears unstopped. That can only be done by God - by the Word of God (as the scripture says). Then, once someone hears, then they can believe. So it isn't a willingness to believe that evokes real faith, it is the quickening by the Spirit of God that causes men to hear and then respond to the gospel. It can't be otherwise. So a man's faith is not created by reading scripture, it is created by (spiritually) hearing the Word. It is only done by a supernatural work of God. In that sense, faith is God's gift.

Jason0047
November 19th, 2013, 05:07 PM
You missed a critical step here, Jason. Faith comes by hearing. And hearing comes by the Word of God. And if you read Romans 10, you see Paul detailing Israel's hardness of heart, unbelief and deaf ears. It's important, I think, that he quotes Isaiah who was told to make the people deaf by prophesying (Isaiah 6:10). So it was God who created that situation after Israel provoked God to His face multiple times. And in the state of deafness, one doesn't just decide to hear and believe - one must first have his ears unstopped. That can only be done by God - by the Word of God (as the scripture says). Then, once someone hears, then they can believe. So it isn't a willingness to believe that evokes real faith, it is the quickening by the Spirit of God that causes men to hear and then respond to the gospel. It can't be otherwise. So a man's faith is not created by reading scripture, it is created by (spiritually) hearing the Word. It is only done by a supernatural work of God. In that sense, faith is God's gift.

You cannot have faith (i.e. being born of water) if you do not hear some word or words taken from the Bible. For you cannot have the gospel without the Bible.

nikolai_42
November 19th, 2013, 05:14 PM
You cannot have faith or being born of water if you do not hear some word or words taken from the Bible. For you cannot have the gospel without the Bible.

So (for instance) the Muslims in the Middle East that are finding Christ in huge numbers - not because anyone spoke to them, but because Christ appeared to them in a dream - they don't really believe?

These people who see Christ are not converted by the dream but given the faith to believe and they seek out missionaries or people they know will have the answers and they find the scriptures and Christ. It wasn't the bible that made them believe, it was God alone.

So I don't think you are correct in what you say. I don't believe that's what scripture says.

Jason0047
November 19th, 2013, 05:21 PM
...the King James Bible is in error...

I've already explained it. You are only seeing error where none exist to prove your position. For how would you view the Word of God if the Lord told you in person that the preserved Word of God that we have today for our generation does not have mistakes in it? What would you do? Keep looking for errors?

For God does not make mistakes; And He tells us within His Word that His Holy words are perfect and that they would be preserved for all generations.

Jason0047
November 19th, 2013, 06:10 PM
So (for instance) the Muslims in the Middle East that are finding Christ in huge numbers - not because anyone spoke to them, but because Christ appeared to them in a dream - they don't really believe?

These people who see Christ are not converted by the dream but given the faith to believe and they seek out missionaries or people they know will have the answers and they find the scriptures and Christ. It wasn't the bible that made them believe, it was God alone.

So I don't think you are correct in what you say. I don't believe that's what scripture says.

I am aware of tribes people and how they had received visions beforehand of the missionaries bring the Word. However, the missionaries did not come without a Bible. These tribes people did not have the gospel preached to them by a vision. If that was the case, then God would not need us to preach the gospel to all nations.

Romans 10:14

How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?

Jerry Shugart
November 19th, 2013, 06:26 PM
I've already explained it.

Jason, my friend, where have you addressed this verse?:


"Blessed be the LORD, that hath given rest unto his people Israel, according to all that he promised: there hath not failed one word of all his good promise, which he promised by the hand of Moses his servant" (1 Ki.8:56).

I searched this thread and I never saw you address it. Just give me the Post # on this thread where you addressed it and we can discuss what you said.

Jason0047
November 19th, 2013, 06:39 PM
Romans 10:14

How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?

Romans 10:14 and Romans 10:17 sums it up nicely about how we get our faith.

However, also please consider these passages, as well.

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

This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? (Galatians 6:2).

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).

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

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

For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation (Romans 10:10).

Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent. And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead (Luke 16:29-31).

Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God. Those by the way side are they that hear; then cometh the devil, and taketh away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved. They on the rock are they, which, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no root, which for a while believe, and in time of temptation fall away. And that which fell among thorns are they, which, when they have heard, go forth, and are choked with cares and riches and pleasures of this life, and bring no fruit to perfection. But that on the good ground are they, which in an honest and good heart, having heard the word, keep it, and bring forth fruit with patience (Luke 8:11-15).

Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, (Ephesians 5:25-26).

Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God (John 3:5).

Jason0047
November 19th, 2013, 06:43 PM
Jason, my friend, where have you addressed this verse?:


"Blessed be the LORD, that hath given rest unto his people Israel, according to all that he promised: there hath not failed one word of all his good promise, which he promised by the hand of Moses his servant" (1 Ki.8:56).

I searched this thread and I never saw you address it. Just give me the Post # on this thread where you addressed it and we can discuss what you said.

I did not reply because you did not explain the problem. For I did not catch the reason why you think 1 Kings 8:56 is a problem (even with the bolded words). Please explain why you think there is in error in it and I will do my best to explain it to you. But please know it is a one time explanation. There will be no feedback loop debates. Not going to play that game again, my friend. You either accept the truth of God's Word that it is perfect or you don't (For at the heart of this discussion it is an issue of your faith in God and His Word and it has nothing to do with proving if there an error within the Scriptures).

Anyways, go ahead with the explanation of why you think the Word of God is flawed here.

intojoy
November 19th, 2013, 06:55 PM
Disobedience of God's Laws without repentance (followed by death) never leads to eternal life but only punishment in the after life.

Jude 1:4-7

4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.

5 I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not.

6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.

7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

2 Peter 2:6-10

6 And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly; The Godly will Be Delivered

7 And delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked:

8 (For that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful deeds; )

9 The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished:Profane and Blasphemous Seducers

10 But chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government. Presumptuous are they, selfwilled, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities.

2 Peter 2:12-13

"...and shall utterly perish in their own corruption; And shall receive the reward of unrighteousness, as they that count it pleasure to riot in the day time..."In fact, I double dog dare you to slowly read the rest of the chapter here.

http://biblehub.com/kjv/2_peter/2.htm

Don't just read it with OSAS glasses. Just read it from an objective standpoint.


Dude, it's me ur talking to - child please!

We've been thru this before, psalm 90 says that the generation that died in the wilderness died saved suckah.. Come off your holy wagon.
They probably ended up more obedient than you think you are after they received their .. Uuhm physical punishment - physical death, not eternal damnation.. Come on son catch up!!


Posted from the TOL App!

Jabin
November 19th, 2013, 07:05 PM
We've been thru this before, psalm 90 says that the generation that died in the wilderness died saved suckah.. Come off your holy wagon.
They probably ended up more obedient than you think you are after they received their .. Uuhm physical punishment - physical death, not eternal damnation.. Come on son catch up!!

Sometimes having a devil's advocate around can stimulate thought. But, come on, you don't have act like Satan's paid spokesdemon.

Those who died in the wilderness went to Hell. Not being allowed into the Promised Land is more than just geography. It's representative of them not being allowed into Heaven. God said they weren't his.

But, that doesn't jive with your satanic religion that Paradise is promised to antichrists. You're wrong, Intolies, when they turned from God, they turned from salvation, not to salvation.

Jason0047
November 19th, 2013, 07:20 PM
We've been thru this before, psalm 90 says that the generation that died in the wilderness died saved suckah.. Come off your holy wagon.
They probably ended up more obedient than you think you are after they received their .. Uuhm physical punishment - physical death, not eternal damnation.. Come on son catch up!!

While it is true that Psalm 90 talks about those in the Wilderness, this chapter does not defend the notion that they went to Heaven, though. If you believe this chapter teaches as such, it would be a bit of a stretch of the imagination. For you would need to cite specific verses and cross reference them with other Scripture to prove that your case is true. But I know you can't do that. How so?

Well, Hebrews 3:7-19 gives us a clear warning from the bad example of those Jews who rebelled against God in the Wilderness.

For in the letter to the Hebrews, we see a need for steadfastness, or faithfulness, explains the exhortations found in this letter. We saw it in the first exhortation in Hebrews 2:1-4 with regard to "The Danger Of Drifting." And now we come to the second exhortation regarding "The Danger Of Departing From The Living God" in Hebrews 3:7-19.

This passage seems to follow three trains of thought:

"The Example Of Israel In The Wilderness" (vs. 7-11).
"The Danger Of Departing" (vs. 12-14).
"The Example Of Israel In The Wilderness" (vs. 15-19).

The first thing we need to understand about Israel in the wilderness is that Israel hardened their hearts. The quotation found in vs. 7-11 is from Psalm 95:7, 8, 9, 10, 11 where the Holy Spirit warned Israel not to be like their fathers in the wilderness. And the writer to the Hebrews found this warning to be just as necessary in his day.

In the wilderness, the Israelites hardened their hearts in rebelling against God. They tested (or tried) God with their lack of faith. And that is the reason they did not enter God's rest. God became angry with that generation in the wilderness because of their persistent rebellion (Psalm 106:13-33). And so in Numbers 14:22-24 and Numbers 26-35, God swore that they would not enter His rest. Of all those over the age of twenty when they left Egypt, only Joshua and Caleb entered the Promised Land. All the rest, of which there were 603,548 men, died in the wilderness. Because of their hardened hearts, Israel departed from God. They rebelled against God. And because of their rebellion, they fell short of the Canaan rest that had been promised to them.

The Danger of Departing (vs. 12-14).
Now, with this "Warning From The Wilderness" fresh in their minds, the writer next exhorts his brethren by warning them of "The Danger of Departing." And so, we need to BEWARE. You see, a believer can develop "an evil heart of unbelief." Back in v. 1, the recipients of this letter were called "holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling," which means that this warning against developing a heart of unbelief is presented as a real possibility! A "believer" can become an "unbeliever"! And unbelief is produced when you are "hardened through the deceitfulness of sin."

Sin is deceitful! It promises pleasure, power and prestige. And in the short term it may seem to deliver on that promise. But such things are "passing," or temporary. Later in Hebrews 11:25, the writer talks about why Moses left the luxury of the palace of Pharaoh and says, "choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God than to enjoy the passing pleasures of sin." John warns us in 1 John 2:17 not to love the world because "the world is passing away, and the lusts of it." The rewards of sin are "passing away." They are temporary. But because sin is deceitful, it is easy for us to become "hardened," to become stubborn and not willing to heed the Word of God. It happened to Israel, and it can happen to us! And the consequence of such unbelief is "departing from the living God." As you grow in unbelief, you drift away from God. While a believer remains in fellowship with God, an unbeliever can only depart farther and farther away from God.

Source Used:
http://www.bible.ca/ef/expository-hebrews-3-7-19.htm

Jason0047
November 19th, 2013, 07:41 PM
So the solution is to "exhort one another daily." This is how a believer avoids becoming an unbeliever. Through mutual edification on a daily basis we can prevent the "hardening" that comes from sin's deceitfulness. And an important part of such exhortation is our assembling together (Hebrews 10:24-25; Acts 20:7). But with the need for "daily exhortation," do you think that we should be content to limit our assembling to just one service a week? Don't you think that if we have the opportunity to assemble more often that we ought to? We need to "exhort one another daily."

But this passage shows us once again the conditional nature of our participation with Christ. In v. 6, we are the house of Christ "If we hold fast the confidence and rejoicing of the hope firm to the end." And now in v. 14, we have become partakers of Christ "If we hold the beginning of our confidence steadfast to the end." Yet someone is bound to ask, "But what about the security of the believers?" Well, the "believer" does indeed enjoy the assurance of his salvation. But we've already seen that a "believer" can develop "an evil heart of unbelief." In other words, a "believer" can become an "unbeliever." Or as the writer says in v. 12, "Beware, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief in departing from the living God." And so, when a "believer" becomes an "unbeliever" all of the promises of security and salvation there are for the "believer" no longer apply to the "unbeliever." And that is why there are so many warnings to remain faithful, including that of our Lord in Revelation 2:10, where He says "be faithful until death, and I will give you the crown of life."

The Example Of Israel In The Wilderness (vs. 15-19).
In fact, the danger of departing from God is so great that the writer next returns to the example of Israel in the wilderness and another appeal is made. Quoting again from Psalm 95:7-8, the writer says "Today, if you will hear His voice, do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion." Now notice that the writer applies this quotation to Christians. You see, Christians need to "hear His (God's) voice." In Hebrews 1:1-2, the writer said, "God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His Son." And then in Hebrews 2:1-4, he returns to this theme and says, "Therefore we must give the more earnest heed to the things we have heard, lest we drift away. For if the word spoken through angels proved steadfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just reward, how shall we escape if we neglect so great a salvation, which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed to us by those who heard Him, God also bearing witness both with signs and wonders, with various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit, according to His own will? When he says "hear His voice," he means to hear with a desire to hearken, because we too can easily harden our hearts "as in the rebellion."

And so, there is the need for Christians to believe and obey. In the case of the Israelites, who was it who rebelled? It was all of those who came out of Egypt except for Joshua and Caleb. Although they had been led by Moses and delivered from Egyptian bondage, they still rebelled. And so the point is that although we may have been delivered by Christ from the bondage of sin, rebellion is still possible even for us. In the case of the Israelites, with whom was God angry for forty years? It was with all of those who sinned. And they died in the wilderness as a result of their lack of faith. So if we become hardened through the deceitfulness of sin, do you think that we will escape judgment? In the case of the Israelites, who was it that God did not allow into the Promised Land? It was those who did not obey. It was those who had developed unbelief. And so, if we disobey through unbelief, are we going to enter our promised rest?

When the apostle Paul related some of the same experiences of Israel in the wilderness, he said in 1 Corinthians 10:11, "Now all these things happened to them as examples, and they were written for our admonition, on whom the ends of the ages have come." My friends, it is for our admonition that we have such warnings as these found in our text because the deceitfulness of sin is just as strong today. They are there because the hardening of one's heart is just as dangerous today. They are there because departing from God is just as possible today. The potential for falling short of our promised rest is just as much a reality for us as it proved to be for the Israelites in the wilderness. And that is why we need to "exhort one another daily" to remain strong in the faith and to remain strong in obedience.

Source Used:
http://www.bible.ca/ef/expository-hebrews-3-7-19.htm

intojoy
November 19th, 2013, 07:50 PM
While it is true that Psalm 90 talks about those in the Wilderness, this chapter does not defend the notion that they went to Heaven, though. If you believe this chapter teaches as such, it would be a bit of a stretch of the imagination. For you would need to cite specific verses and cross reference them with other Scripture to prove that your case is true. But I know you can't do that. How so?

Well, Hebrews 3:7-19 gives us a clear warning from the bad example of those Jews who rebelled against God in the Wilderness.

For in the letter to the Hebrews, we see a need for steadfastness, or faithfulness, explains the exhortations found in this letter. We saw it in the first exhortation in Hebrews 2:1-4 with regard to "The Danger Of Drifting." And now we come to the second exhortation regarding "The Danger Of Departing From The Living God" in Hebrews 3:7-19.

This passage seems to follow three trains of thought:

"The Example Of Israel In The Wilderness" (vs. 7-11).
"The Danger Of Departing" (vs. 12-14).
"The Example Of Israel In The Wilderness" (vs. 15-19).

The first thing we need to understand about Israel in the wilderness is that Israel hardened their hearts. The quotation found in vs. 7-11 is from Psalm 95:7, 8, 9, 10, 11 where the Holy Spirit warned Israel not to be like their fathers in the wilderness. And the writer to the Hebrews found this warning to be just as necessary in his day.

In the wilderness, the Israelites hardened their hearts in rebelling against God. They tested (or tried) God with their lack of faith. And that is the reason they did not enter God's rest. God became angry with that generation in the wilderness because of their persistent rebellion (Psalm 106:13-33). And so in Numbers 14:22-24 and Numbers 26-35, God swore that they would not enter His rest. Of all those over the age of twenty when they left Egypt, only Joshua and Caleb entered the Promised Land. All the rest, of which there were 603,548 men, died in the wilderness. Because of their hardened hearts, Israel departed from God. They rebelled against God. And because of their rebellion, they fell short of the Canaan rest that had been promised to them.

The Danger of Departing (vs. 12-14).
Now, with this "Warning From The Wilderness" fresh in their minds, the writer next exhorts his brethren by warning them of "The Danger of Departing." And so, we need to BEWARE. You see, a believer can develop "an evil heart of unbelief." Back in v. 1, the recipients of this letter were called "holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling," which means that this warning against developing a heart of unbelief is presented as a real possibility! A "believer" can become an "unbeliever"! And unbelief is produced when you are "hardened through the deceitfulness of sin."

Sin is deceitful! It promises pleasure, power and prestige. And in the short term it may seem to deliver on that promise. But such things are "passing," or temporary. Later in Hebrews 11:25, the writer talks about why Moses left the luxury of the palace of Pharaoh and says, "choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God than to enjoy the passing pleasures of sin." John warns us in 1 John 2:17 not to love the world because "the world is passing away, and the lusts of it." The rewards of sin are "passing away." They are temporary. But because sin is deceitful, it is easy for us to become "hardened," to become stubborn and not willing to heed the Word of God. It happened to Israel, and it can happen to us! And the consequence of such unbelief is "departing from the living God." As you grow in unbelief, you drift away from God. While a believer remains in fellowship with God, an unbeliever can only depart farther and farther away from God.

Source Used:
http://www.bible.ca/ef/expository-hebrews-3-7-19.htm


I'm not reading all of that. But thx for admitting that the psalm demonstrates that none ahumm lost their salvation at Kadesh Barnea and that their sin there did not bring upon them eternal damnation.


Posted from the TOL App!

Jerry Shugart
November 19th, 2013, 09:30 PM
I did not reply because you did not explain the problem. For I did not catch the reason why you think 1 Kings 8:56 is a problem (even with the bolded words). Please explain why you think there is in error in it and I will do my best to explain it to you.

According to 1 Kings 8:56 the Lord did not break any promises which He made in regard to Israel.

But this faulty translation says that He did:


"After the number of the days in which ye searched the land, even forty days, each day for a year, shall ye bear your iniquities, even forty years, and ye shall know my breach of promise" (Num.14:34; KJV).

Jason0047
November 19th, 2013, 09:53 PM
According to 1 Kings 8:56 the Lord did not break any promises which He made in regard to Israel.

But this faulty translation says that He did:


"After the number of the days in which ye searched the land, even forty days, each day for a year, shall ye bear your iniquities, even forty years, and ye shall know my breach of promise" (Num.14:34; KJV).

The Bible has homonyms in it. Words that look similar but they have different meanings. How do we know they are different. Because of the context.


1 Kings 8:56 states the truth that God cannot break his promises.



Numbers 14:34 states that the "breach of promise" is just another way of saying God's punishment (i.e. you shall know my punishment). For God owns everything. For He sets the parameters for their disobedience or what will happen if they breach His promises. For the words "breach of promise" is in context of the words "shall ye bear your iniquities" mentioned within the same verse. In other words, the Israelites who bear their iniquities shall know the punishment of the Lord. For the Lord's breach of promise is God's punishment for the sins that they committed. For the whole chapter deals with the Israelite's iniquities and their judgment.

Numbers 14:41-43
"And Moses said, Wherefore now do ye transgress the commandment of the LORD? but it shall not prosper. Go not up, for the LORD is not among you; that ye be not smitten before your enemies. For the Amalekites and the Canaanites are there before you, and ye shall fall by the sword: because ye are turned away from the LORD, therefore the LORD will not be with you."

In other words, does not God own or set the parameters for the punishment for those who break His promises? This is what is meant by the phrase "ye shall know my breach of promise", i.e. They shall know God's punishment.

There is no contradiction.

glorydaz
November 19th, 2013, 10:44 PM
That has nothing to do with God making a promise. Instead, Israel committed adultery and therefore the Lord rightly gave her a bill of divorce.

That has nothing to do with the Lord breaking a promise.

Ig the Lord promises something and He does not follow through on that promise then that would mean He lied. And God cannot lie so He cannot breat His promises:


"In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began" (Titus 1:2).

I never thought I would see the day when believers would be arguing that God breaks His promises!


"God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?" (Num.23:19).

And He rightly annulled His Covenant with Israel which promised blessings for obedience...no difference. What is a marriage but a Promise? Yet God divorced Israel.

I never thought I'd see the day when someone would read that verse and make such a claim. When I read this text, it's clear the people would experience God's withdrawal of the blessings He'd promised if they disobeyed Him. Perhaps you aren't familiar with the language in the KJV. God's covenant of blessings for obedience can't be ignored...what would the "knowing" be? Why would that be there if God were saying, "I'm breaking my Promise"?


Numbers 14:33-35
And your children shall wander in the wilderness forty years, and bear your whoredoms, until your carcases be wasted in the wilderness. After the number of the days in which ye searched the land, even forty days, each day for a year, shall ye bear your iniquities, even forty years, and ye shall know my breach of promise. I the LORD have said, I will surely do it unto all this evil congregation, that are gathered together against me: in this wilderness they shall be consumed, and there they shall die.

Jerry Shugart
November 20th, 2013, 12:25 AM
In other words, does not God own or set the parameters for the punishment for those who break His promises? This is what is meant by the phrase "ye shall know my breach of promise", i.e. They shall know God's punishment.

That is ridiculous!

The phrase "breach of promise" does not mean "God's punishment."

Jerry Shugart
November 20th, 2013, 12:35 AM
And He rightly annulled His Covenant with Israel which promised blessings for obedience...no difference. What is a marriage but a Promise? Yet God divorced Israel.

A marriage is two promises, not one. Both partners promise to be faithful. If the wife strays it is ridiculous to say that the husband broke His promise.

But you say that since Israel was not faithful that proves that God broke His promise!!!

Again, I never thought in a million years that any believers would ever dare suggest that God breaks His promises, much less go to such lengths to try to prove that He breaks them.

Jason0047
November 20th, 2013, 07:39 AM
That is ridiculous!

The phrase "breach of promise" does not mean "God's punishment."

Let me rephrase it so that you might understand it a little better.

For example:

Let's say there is a king who is about to marry a queen from another country. The king promises this queen that he will never leave her if she is faithful to him. That is a promise that he will never break. So the King being faithful to her is based upon the condition that the queen must be faithful to him. So the king draws up a contract that stipulates these marriage conditions. That if she is faithful, he will not put her away (i.e. divorce her). The contract page that the king draws up for the king divorcing her is called "The Breach of Promise." The contract page that says that king promises to be faithful to her is "The King's Promise of His Faithfulness."

The king owns the contract page titled: "The Breach of Promise" which describes the conditions of the marriage of whereby if she is unfaithful, she would in effect "breach the King's promise." So she will know the King's "breach of promise" if she is unfaithful to him. In other words, she will know the king's punishment if she violates the contract page titled the "Breach of Promise" (Which is owned by the King).

So it's not that the King broke his promise to her if she is unfaithful, but it is the King's condition (that he owns) that says he will divorce her is she breaches his contract by her being unfaithful.

For words do not have straight jackets placed upon them with only one meaning that you define alone. The world does not revolve around your interpretation of how words are defined or interpreted. For men like us can always be wrong. But God and His Word can never be wrong. For if there is one thing that you can trust in this life is that God's Word is always faithful and true. It is perfect and without error because God is perfect and without error. For if God provided an imperfect means of communication to us, it reflect badly upon his perfect, good, and holy character.

For God provided His Word for us today and God doesn't make mistakes.

nikolai_42
November 20th, 2013, 08:25 AM
I am aware of tribes people and how they had received visions beforehand of the missionaries bring the Word. However, the missionaries did not come without a Bible. These tribes people did not have the gospel preached to them by a vision. If that was the case, then God would not need us to preach the gospel to all nations.

Romans 10:14

How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?

But there again, you've missed a step. One can only be saved by the gospel (with that you agreed). But to be able to actually hear the gospel, one must be quickened to it. That quickening comes by the Word of God. That doesn't necessarily mean "reading scripture". The example of Muslims coming to Christ by means of a dream doesn't mean the gospel isn't preached according to scripture - but it shows that the Word of God that opens the hearing of the recipient is not the letter. So the bible - as good as it is - is useless to a person who can't hear spiritually.

And ye have not his word abiding in you: for whom he hath sent, him ye believe not.
Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.
John 5:38-40

The Pharisees had the scriptures. They thought they had eternal life in them. But they didn't. Why? They didn't have His Word in them. That is what is required for a man to come to Christ. Not the external word (the letter) but the Living Word. There must be something quickening a man before he can even approach the scriptures. So the hearing that Paul talks about in Romans 10 is spiritual hearing. Again - Isaiah was commanded to prophesy to Israel so their ears were deafened and that had to be reversed. And only those in whom the Word dwelt would receive Christ. They ALL had the scriptures.

Jason0047
November 20th, 2013, 09:19 AM
God's Word is a part of Him. It's not the entirety of God but is important part of how God communicates to us. Sort of like how my voice or my written thoughts is a part of me, but it is not the entirety of me. But make no mistake, though; You can't separate the Word of God from salvation. God always operates within the bounds within His Holy Word. Yes, God draws and regenerates a person with His Spirit but God uses His Word to as a part of this process. You cannot. I repeat you cannot have faith in the gospel without the Word of God. Not going to happen. God always uses His Word as a means whereby someone will have a true faith.

For Jesus quoted Scripture all the time. Why did he do that? The apostles used the Old Testament Scriptures to preach the gospel, too. Why would they do that?

Jerry Shugart
November 20th, 2013, 09:21 AM
The king owns the contract page titled: "The Breach of Promise" which describes the conditions of the marriage of whereby if she is unfaithful, she would in effect "breach the King's promise."

The king would not "own" the agreement between two different parties. That is not how legal contacts function. So when we consider what is said here the reference would not be in regard to any agreement which God owns:


"After the number of the days in which ye searched the land, even forty days, each day for a year, shall ye bear your iniquities, even forty years, and ye shall know my breach of promise" (Num.14:34).

The word "my" cannot apply to anything other than God's "breach of promise." This mistranslation has God breaking His promise and we both know that God does not lie so it is impossible that He could ever break a promise.


For words do not have straight jackets placed upon them with only one meaning that you define alone. The world does not revolve around your interpretation of how words are defined or interpreted.

Not my interpretation, but instead even the translators of the King James version of the Bible depended on experts in other languages, in this case Hebrew.

And the meaning which the Hebrew experts place of the word translated "my breach of promise" is "opposition, alienation, enmity"(Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon).

There is nothing inherent in that definition which even hints of anything having to do with a promise, much less a "breach of promise."

So the translators of the KJB made an error when they translated Numbers 14:34 and any effort to defend that interpretation is an effort to impunge the integrity of the Lord. In other words, anyone who is defending that translation is doing nothing less than promoting the idea that God will break his promises and therefore lie.

Of course you will continue in your effort to defend that translation since you have too much invested in the idea that the King James version of the Bible is without error.

Jason0047
November 20th, 2013, 09:23 AM
A marriage is two promises, not one. Both partners promise to be faithful. If the wife strays it is ridiculous to say that the husband broke His promise.

But you say that since Israel was not faithful that proves that God broke His promise!!!

Again, I never thought in a million years that any believers would ever dare suggest that God breaks His promises, much less go to such lengths to try to prove that He breaks them.

Gonna have to agree with you on this one. God never broke his promise to Israel. He never divorced Israel. They are God's promised people that will one day be grafted back into God's program (By them accepting the Messiah) during the End Times.

Jason0047
November 20th, 2013, 09:24 AM
The king would not "own" the agreement between two different parties. That is not how legal contacts function. So when we consider what is said here the reference would not be in regard to any agreement which God owns:


"After the number of the days in which ye searched the land, even forty days, each day for a year, shall ye bear your iniquities, even forty years, and ye shall know my breach of promise" (Num.14:34).

The word "my" cannot apply to anything other than God's "breach of promise." This mistranslation has God breaking His promise and we both know that God does not lie so it is impossible that He could ever break a promise.



Not my interpretation, but instead even the translators of the King James version of the Bible depended on experts in other languages, in this case Hebrew.

And the meaning which the Hebrew experts place of the word translated "my breach of promise" is "opposition, alienation, enmity"(Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon).

There is nothing inherent in that definition which even hints of anything having to do with a promise, much less a "breach of promise."

So the translators of the KJB made an error when they translated Numbers 14:34 and any effort to defend that interpretation is an effort to impunge the integrity of the Lord. In other words, anyone who is defending that translation is doing nothing less than promoting the idea that God will break his promises and therefore lie.

Of course you will continue in your effort to defend that translation since you have too much invested in the idea that the King James version of the Bible is without error.

Not going to endlessly debate this with you. If you do not accept my intial explanation then you are never going to get it, my friend. You believe God's Word has errors and there is nothing that will convince you otherwise. Let's move on.

Christian Liberty
November 20th, 2013, 09:41 AM
Let me rephrase it so that you might understand it a little better.

For example:

Let's say there is a king who is about to marry a queen from another country. The king promises this queen that he will never leave her if she is faithful to him. That is a promise that he will never break. So the King being faithful to her is based upon the condition that the queen must be faithful to him. So the king draws up a contract that stipulates these marriage conditions. That if she is faithful, he will not put her away (i.e. divorce her). The contract page that the king draws up for the king divorcing her is called "The Breach of Promise." The contract page that says that king promises to be faithful to her is "The King's Promise of His Faithfulness."

The king owns the contract page titled: "The Breach of Promise" which describes the conditions of the marriage of whereby if she is unfaithful, she would in effect "breach the King's promise." So she will know the King's "breach of promise" if she is unfaithful to him. In other words, she will know the king's punishment if she violates the contract page titled the "Breach of Promise" (Which is owned by the King).

So it's not that the King broke his promise to her if she is unfaithful, but it is the King's condition (that he owns) that says he will divorce her is she breaches his contract by her being unfaithful.

For words do not have straight jackets placed upon them with only one meaning that you define alone. The world does not revolve around your interpretation of how words are defined or interpreted. For men like us can always be wrong. But God and His Word can never be wrong. For if there is one thing that you can trust in this life is that God's Word is always faithful and true. It is perfect and without error because God is perfect and without error. For if God provided an imperfect means of communication to us, it reflect badly upon his perfect, good, and holy character.

For God provided His Word for us today and God doesn't make mistakes.

Although it is indeed true that some of God's promises are conditional, Salvation is NEVER conditional.

Jerry Shugart
November 20th, 2013, 10:17 AM
Not going to endlessly debate this with you. If you do not accept my intial explanation then you are never going to get it, my friend. You believe God's Word has errors and there is nothing that will convince you otherwise. Let's move on.

You are never going to get it until you realize that the KJB is not without error. You confuse "God's word" with a translation of God's word.

They are not the same but you cannot tell the difference!

glorydaz
November 20th, 2013, 10:41 AM
Gonna have to agree with you on this one. God never broke his promise to Israel. He never divorced Israel. They are God's promised people that will one day be grafted back into God's program (By them accepting the Messiah) during the End Times.

Yes, He did.


Jeremiah 3:8
And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also.

He bought her back.


[/INDENT]Hosea 3:1-5
Then said the LORD unto me, Go yet, love a woman beloved of her friend, yet an adulteress, according to the love of the LORD toward the children of Israel, who look to other gods, and love flagons of wine. So I bought her to me for fifteen pieces of silver, and for an homer of barley, and an half homer of barley: And I said unto her, Thou shalt abide for me many days; thou shalt not play the harlot, and thou shalt not be for another man: so will I also be for thee. For the children of Israel shall abide many days without a king, and without a prince, and without a sacrifice, and without an image, and without an ephod, and without teraphim: Afterward shall the children of Israel return, and seek the LORD their God, and David their king; and shall fear the LORD and his goodness in the latter days.[/INDENT]

Jabin
November 20th, 2013, 12:04 PM
In other words, does not God own or set the parameters for the punishment for those who break His promises? This is what is meant by the phrase "ye shall know my breach of promise", i.e. They shall know God's punishment.

First, no one can break someone else's promise.
Second, the KJV makes God into a Liar (to the modern reader).
Third, your reasoning is always tortured tortured, isn't it?

nikolai_42
November 20th, 2013, 12:35 PM
God's Word is a part of Him. It's not the entirety of God but is important part of how God communicates to us. Sort of like how my voice or my written thoughts is a part of me, but it is not the entirety of me. But make no mistake, though; You can't separate the Word of God from salvation. God always operates within the bounds within His Holy Word. Yes, God draws and regenerates a person with His Spirit but God uses His Word to as a part of this process. You cannot. I repeat you cannot have faith in the gospel without the Word of God. Not going to happen. God always uses His Word as a means whereby someone will have a true faith.

For Jesus quoted Scripture all the time. Why did he do that? The apostles used the Old Testament Scriptures to preach the gospel, too. Why would they do that?

Hearing the word superficially (like the Pharisees did) doesn't mean you have the word internally. That "hearing" requires the Word to work in you. All that is prerequisite to the preaching of the word externally or it is fruitless. Faith comes by being made able to hear and you are made able to hear by the Word active internally. Again, the Pharisees had the scriptures (as Jesus said) but they didn't have the Word dwelling in them. Therefore, they couldn't hear.

Truster
November 20th, 2013, 12:58 PM
Hearing the word superficially (like the Pharisees did) doesn't mean you have the word internally. That "hearing" requires the Word to work in you. All that is prerequisite to the preaching of the word externally or it is fruitless. Faith comes by being made able to hear and you are made able to hear by the Word active internally. Again, the Pharisees had the scriptures (as Jesus said) but they didn't have the Word dwelling in them. Therefore, they couldn't hear.


…'For our gospel came not unto you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance;''

Jason0047
November 20th, 2013, 03:21 PM
Hearing the word superficially (like the Pharisees did) doesn't mean you have the word internally. That "hearing" requires the Word to work in you. All that is prerequisite to the preaching of the word externally or it is fruitless. Faith comes by being made able to hear and you are made able to hear by the Word active internally. Again, the Pharisees had the scriptures (as Jesus said) but they didn't have the Word dwelling in them. Therefore, they couldn't hear.

I never denied that the Spirit is an essential part of a person's regeneration.

But you must know that in the Parable of the Sower the Word of God was sown in a person's heart. So a person cannot just hear the Word only, but they must accept it into their heart. This process involves God (of course). For I never denied that the Spirit and the Word are separate. I never said that you can have regeneration without the Spirit. The two are inseparable. The Word and the Spirit are are tied together. But that does not address my point. You still cannot have salvation without the Word of God for the average adult person. The only exception to this rule is babies and or those who are mentally handicapped. For where there is no law, sin is not imputed. However, for everyone else, they need the Word of God and the gospel to be saved. God does not save people without Him using His Holy Written Word. Oh, and yes. God regenerates the believer by His Spirit, too. For...

(a) Jesus said we are born of the Spirit. (And):
(b) Jesus said we are born of water (i.e. the Word), too.

Jason0047
November 20th, 2013, 03:57 PM
Yes, He did.


Jeremiah 3:8
And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also.

God has never divorced Israel.

Now, the Lord has let Israel play the whore and fall into captivity of her own choosing, but he never had forsaken her as a Husband. For God has never divorced Israel nor has He let Israel fall by the way side completely. How so?

Well, in Jeremiah chapter 3, using a jarring metaphor, Jeremiah compares Israel's spiritual disloyalty to an adulterous woman who has been put away by the husband whom she betrayed. The prophet then asks a biting question, "After she leaves him and marries another man, may he return to her again?" (Jeremiah 3:1) The unspoken answer is that he cannot. Deuteronomy 24:1-4 states that the original husband may never come back to his twice-divorced wife. So it would have been impossible for God to divorce Israel and then re-marry her because it would have broken His own Law.

In fact, we learn that Jeremiah's purpose in using this parable is two-fold. First, the prophet wishes to vividly illustrate Israel's spiritual disloyalty to its Creator. Second, and most important, unlike the twice-estranged wife whose original husband cannot return to her, the prophet appeals to the Jewish people to repent and proclaims that it is their sacred mandate to be restored as God's chosen people. What is impossible with the forsaken woman is the destiny for the children of Israel. Let's look at the entire verse in context:

They say,
"If a man divorces his wife, and she goes from him and becomes another man's, may he return to her again?" Would not that land be greatly polluted? But you have played the harlot with many lovers; "Yet return to Me," says the Lord." ~ (Jeremiah 3:1)

The central feature of the prophet's exhortation that some people overlook appears at the very end of the verse,


" 'Yet return to Me', says the Lord."

Jeremiah makes this plea five times throughout the chapter. The message conveyed by the prophet is clear: The mercy and compassion of the Almighty is far beyond the scope of man's comprehension.

Whereas the betrayed husband would never take back his adulterous wife, our merciful God will forgive His wayward nation. While the human husband would never forgive his cheating wife, God will forgive his adulterous nation. In these moving passages, Jeremiah outlines the path to reconciliation with the Almighty. In contrast to the enraged husband who would never allow his unfaithful wife to return, God will embrace his penitent people.

What must Israel do to reconcile with her Maker?


Just cry out to Me, "My Father, you are the Master of my youth!" (Jeremiah 3:4)

Yet how can this be? Will God's wrath not be kindled forever against His nation? Jeremiah responds with a rhetorical question.


"Will He remain angry forever? Will He keep it to eternity?" ~ (Jeremiah 3:5)

The Almighty's answer follows with a comforting oath promising Israel an eternal destiny and permanent union with the Almighty.


"Return, O backsliding children," says the Lord, "for I am married to you. I will take you, one from a city and two from a family, and I will bring you to Zion." ~ (Jeremiah 3:14)

The central message of the third chapter remains: The fate of disloyal Israel stands in stark contrast to an unfaithful wife.

Whereas the adulterous woman may never return to her former husband, Jeremiah beckons the Jewish people to return to the Almighty, and assures them of their eternal destiny with the Almighty.

Yet, by what means can the Jewish people return to the Almighty?

Well, if your truly interested, you can read on in Jeremiah chapter 7, which answers this question as he outlines for his disobedient nation in how to restore their relationship with God.

In addition, it is also important to note that in the New Testament, we learn in Romans 11:1-5 that God did NOT divorce Israel, too...


"I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel, saying, Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life. But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal. Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace."For Israel shall be saved.

Romans 11:25-27

"For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins."


He bought her back.


Hosea 3:1-5
Then said the LORD unto me, Go yet, love a woman beloved of her friend, yet an adulteress, according to the love of the LORD toward the children of Israel, who look to other gods, and love flagons of wine. So I bought her to me for fifteen pieces of silver, and for an homer of barley, and an half homer of barley: And I said unto her, Thou shalt abide for me many days; thou shalt not play the harlot, and thou shalt not be for another man: so will I also be for thee. For the children of Israel shall abide many days without a king, and without a prince, and without a sacrifice, and without an image, and without an ephod, and without teraphim: Afterward shall the children of Israel return, and seek the LORD their God, and David their king; and shall fear the LORD and his goodness in the latter days.

Although there are parallels between Hosea and Gomer in relation to God and Israel, there is a point of taking the parallel too far. This is just simply talking about Hosea and Gomer's situation and not God and Israel's situation. For God is so much more long suffering and forgiving than any man or husband.


Source Used:
http://www.outreachjudaism.org/articles/divorced-israel.html

George Affleck
November 21st, 2013, 12:31 AM
For God does not make mistakes; And He tells us within His Word that His Holy words are perfect and that they would be preserved for all generations.

You're right, the lack of a clear doctrine of the preservation of the Scriptures is the essence of the problem. It is a 'fundamental' issue that Satan has convinced many is simply a 'personal' preference.

Few today seriously ask the question; "Which version has God authorized for use in my language?" They pick the one that suits their taste, the same way Eve picked fruit.

God deposited, at a time when the English language was fully formed and at its best and when the existing manuscripts of His choosing were purest, His pure Word to English speaking people. If it is in error it goes to His integrity - "Yea, hath God said...?".

glorydaz
November 21st, 2013, 04:35 AM
God has never divorced Israel.

Now, the Lord has let Israel play the whore and fall into captivity of her own choosing, but he never had forsaken her as a Husband. For God has never divorced Israel nor has He let Israel fall by the way side completely. How so?

Well, in Jeremiah chapter 3, using a jarring metaphor, Jeremiah compares Israel's spiritual disloyalty to an adulterous woman who has been put away by the husband whom she betrayed. The prophet then asks a biting question, "After she leaves him and marries another man, may he return to her again?" (Jeremiah 3:1) The unspoken answer is that he cannot. Deuteronomy 24:1-4 states that the original husband may never come back to his twice-divorced wife. So it would have been impossible for God to divorce Israel and then re-marry her because it would have broken His own Law.

In fact, we learn that Jeremiah's purpose in using this parable is two-fold. First, the prophet wishes to vividly illustrate Israel's spiritual disloyalty to its Creator. Second, and most important, unlike the twice-estranged wife whose original husband cannot return to her, the prophet appeals to the Jewish people to repent and proclaims that it is their sacred mandate to be restored as God's chosen people. What is impossible with the forsaken woman is the destiny for the children of Israel. Let's look at the entire verse in context:

They say,
"If a man divorces his wife, and she goes from him and becomes another man's, may he return to her again?" Would not that land be greatly polluted? But you have played the harlot with many lovers; "Yet return to Me," says the Lord." ~ (Jeremiah 3:1)

The central feature of the prophet's exhortation that some people overlook appears at the very end of the verse,


" 'Yet return to Me', says the Lord."

Jeremiah makes this plea five times throughout the chapter. The message conveyed by the prophet is clear: The mercy and compassion of the Almighty is far beyond the scope of man's comprehension.

Whereas the betrayed husband would never take back his adulterous wife, our merciful God will forgive His wayward nation. While the human husband would never forgive his cheating wife, God will forgive his adulterous nation. In these moving passages, Jeremiah outlines the path to reconciliation with the Almighty. In contrast to the enraged husband who would never allow his unfaithful wife to return, God will embrace his penitent people.

What must Israel do to reconcile with her Maker?


Just cry out to Me, "My Father, you are the Master of my youth!" (Jeremiah 3:4)

Yet how can this be? Will God's wrath not be kindled forever against His nation? Jeremiah responds with a rhetorical question.


"Will He remain angry forever? Will He keep it to eternity?" ~ (Jeremiah 3:5)

The Almighty's answer follows with a comforting oath promising Israel an eternal destiny and permanent union with the Almighty.


"Return, O backsliding children," says the Lord, "for I am married to you. I will take you, one from a city and two from a family, and I will bring you to Zion." ~ (Jeremiah 3:14)

The central message of the third chapter remains: The fate of disloyal Israel stands in stark contrast to an unfaithful wife.

Whereas the adulterous woman may never return to her former husband, Jeremiah beckons the Jewish people to return to the Almighty, and assures them of their eternal destiny with the Almighty.

Yet, by what means can the Jewish people return to the Almighty?

Well, if your truly interested, you can read on in Jeremiah chapter 7, which answers this question as he outlines for his disobedient nation in how to restore their relationship with God.

In addition, it is also important to note that in the New Testament, we learn in Romans 11:1-5 that God did NOT divorce Israel, too...


"I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel, saying, Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life. But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal. Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace."For Israel shall be saved.

Romans 11:25-27

"For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins."



Although there are parallels between Hosea and Gomer in relation to God and Israel, there is a point of taking the parallel too far. This is just simply talking about Hosea and Gomer's situation and not God and Israel's situation. For God is so much more long suffering and forgiving than any man or husband.


Source Used:
http://www.outreachjudaism.org/articles/divorced-israel.html

I'm glad to see you can still google. :chuckle:

According to the Law, God had to give Israel a bill of divorce before He sent her away into dispersion. The very Law that Jesus said was given because of the hardness of their heart. Rather than explain it away and claim it never happened, you should believe it as it's written and then try to figure out why. Clue...look at the entire book of Hosea and then come back and tell me it has nothing to do with God and Israel's "situation".


Jeremiah 3:8
And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also.

God did not have Hosea take a harlot for a wife for no reason. It was to answer the dilemma in which you now find yourself when you claim there was no divorce at all.


Hosea 1:2
The beginning of the word of the LORD by Hosea. And the LORD said to Hosea, Go, take unto thee a wife of whoredoms and children of whoredoms: for the land hath committed great whoredom, departing from the LORD.


Hosea 1:6-11
And she conceived again, and bare a daughter. And God said unto him, Call her name Loruhamah: for I will no more have mercy upon the house of Israel; but I will utterly take them away. But I will have mercy upon the house of Judah, and will save them by the LORD their God, and will not save them by bow, nor by sword, nor by battle, by horses, nor by horsemen. Now when she had weaned Loruhamah, she conceived, and bare a son. Then said God, Call his name Loammi: for ye are not my people, and I will not be your God. Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor numbered; and it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, there it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God. Then shall the children of Judah and the children of Israel be gathered together, and appoint themselves one head, and they shall come up out of the land: for great shall be the day of Jezreel.


Hosea 3:2-5
So I bought her to me for fifteen pieces of silver, and for an homer of barley, and an half homer of barley: And I said unto her, Thou shalt abide for me many days; thou shalt not play the harlot, and thou shalt not be for another man: so will I also be for thee. For the children of Israel shall abide many days without a king, and without a prince, and without a sacrifice, and without an image, and without an ephod, and without teraphim: Afterward shall the children of Israel return, and seek the LORD their God, and David their king; and shall fear the LORD and his goodness in the latter days.

Jason0047
November 21st, 2013, 09:23 AM
I'm glad to see you can still google.

How did you find TOL? Did someone tell you about it? Did you have a vision? How do you find most information today? Was there ever a time you ever learned anything by what someone said here on TOL? If this is the case, then you have used Google to find information which led you to learning about what another believer has said. For not seeking out what others have written about the Word of God is to think that you have all the answers and that no other believers or teachers out there can teach you anything.



Jeremiah 3:8
And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also.

God did not have Hosea take a harlot for a wife for no reason. It was to answer the dilemma in which you now find yourself when you claim there was no divorce at all.

If a woman sends divorce papers to her husband does that mean they are automatically divorced? No. That is what God did for Israel. The Lord sent them a "bill of divorce", but Israel would have to accept that "bill of divorce", though. For if you believe that Jeremiah 3:8 is proof that God has divorced Israel then you would have a contradiction in Scripture because Jeremiah 3:14 declares that the Lord is still married to Israel. In other words, how can you divorce someone and then say you are still married to them? It doesn't make any sense.

Nick M
November 21st, 2013, 10:33 AM
What difference does "come" vs. "go" make?

Is the KJV your version of choice?

Seriously? You think they mean the same thing? One has Noah leaving God because he had to "Go". The other is a shadow type the messiah where you come to him for salvation.

Nick M
November 21st, 2013, 10:41 AM
When in doubt, you can always check the random-hill version.

Jerry Shugart
November 21st, 2013, 01:01 PM
You're right, the lack of a clear doctrine of the preservation of the Scriptures is the essence of the problem.

George, I would like you to quote your best passage from the Bible which you think proves a "preservation of the Scriptures."

Thanks!

Jason0047
November 21st, 2013, 02:23 PM
I am sure you will come up an explanation that will deny the plain written meaning of Scripture, but I have already listed many Biblical reasons that support the Word of God as being perfectly preserved for our day in Post #94 on page 7 here.

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3675979#post3675979

If your looking for more Scripture in defense of God's Word being perfectly preserved for our day, you may want to also check out this thread here, too.

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=92336

glorydaz
November 21st, 2013, 02:29 PM
How did you find TOL? Did someone tell you about it? Did you have a vision? How do you find most information today? Was there ever a time you ever learned anything by what someone said here on TOL? If this is the case, then you have used Google to find information which led you to learning about what another believer has said. For not seeking out what others have written about the Word of God is to think that you have all the answers and that no other believers or teachers out there can teach you anything.

A friend told me about TOL, and when I do look at something on the web, I use discernment...I don't swallow it whole cloth. You swallowed whole cloth an article from Judaism outreach. Clearly you didn't read enough to see that it's very anti-Christian.



If a woman sends divorce papers to her husband does that mean they are automatically divorced? No. That is what God did for Israel. The Lord sent them a "bill of divorce", but Israel would have to accept that "bill of divorce", though. For if you believe that Jeremiah 3:8 is proof that God has divorced Israel then you would have a contradiction in Scripture because Jeremiah 3:14 declares that the Lord is still married to Israel. In other words, how can you divorce someone and then say you are still married to them? It doesn't make any sense.

No, the wife has no say in the matter. The husband must write a bill of divorcement before He can "send her out of his house."



Deuteronomy 24:1
When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.

Israel was unfaithful but did not remarry...thus the husband is allowed to take her back.


Deuteronomy 24:2
And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife. And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife; Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the LORD: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.


54:6
For the LORD hath called thee as a woman forsaken and grieved in spirit, and a wife of youth, when thou wast refused, saith thy God.

It would be better if you read Hosea instead of googling and presenting as fact something from a Jewish outreach site. Just saying....

intojoy
November 21st, 2013, 04:48 PM
A friend told me about TOL, and when I do look at something on the web, I use discernment...I don't swallow it whole cloth. You swallowed whole cloth an article from Judaism outreach. Clearly you didn't read enough to see that it's very anti-Christian.









No, the wife has no say in the matter. The husband must write a bill of divorcement before He can "send her out of his house."






Deuteronomy 24:1

When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.



Israel was unfaithful but did not remarry...thus the husband is allowed to take her back.




Deuteronomy 24:2

And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife. And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife; Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the LORD: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.




54:6

For the LORD hath called thee as a woman forsaken and grieved in spirit, and a wife of youth, when thou wast refused, saith thy God.



It would be better if you read Hosea instead of googling and presenting as fact something from a Jewish outreach site. Just saying....


Yea right! Sure.


Posted from the TOL App!

Jason0047
November 21st, 2013, 05:34 PM
A friend told me about TOL, and when I do look at something on the web, I use discernment...I don't swallow it whole cloth. You swallowed whole cloth an article from Judaism outreach. Clearly you didn't read enough to see that it's very anti-Christian.

First, you use the web to seek out information that is useful for you, so you are disqualified of making a judgment about me doing the same thing. That's kind of where I am coming at. In other words, take the beam out of your own eye first, etc.

Second, using a Jewish source that backs up the truth of God's Word does not mean that everything they teach is from the devil. Jews need to accept the Messiah but that does not mean they have no discernment of truth whatsoever about other portions of Scripture.


No, the wife has no say in the matter. The husband must write a bill of divorcement before He can "send her out of his house."


Deuteronomy 24:1
When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.

Israel was unfaithful but did not remarry...thus the husband is allowed to take her back.


Deuteronomy 24:2
And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife. And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife; Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the LORD: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.


54:6
For the LORD hath called thee as a woman forsaken and grieved in spirit, and a wife of youth, when thou wast refused, saith thy God.

It would be better if you read Hosea instead of googling and presenting as fact something from a Jewish outreach site. Just saying....

Scripture says God hates divorce. Jesus said he only allowed divorce in the Old Testament because of the hardness of their hearts. What does that say about God? It means that God is not capable of divorcing the nation of Israel.

For God is married to Israel as a nation. God is not married to every individual that existed within Israel. Nor is God married to every group that represents Israel either. Nor is God married to a certain portion or province state of Israel, as well. What am I talking about?

Well, lets look at a little genealogy (To see where I am coming from).

Abraham:

Would be the father of a nation. This nation would be Israel.

Isaac:

Was the son of Abraham & a type of Jesus Christ.

Jacob: (a.k.a. Israel):

Jacob is the father of the 12 tribes of Israel. For his name is Israel.

Later thru time, we see the nation of Israel (made up of the 12 tribes) divide into a:

1. Northern kingdom (Known as Israel)
2. Southern kingdom (Known as Judah)

Both Israel and Judah are technically one nation known as Israel. Judah is just the Southern name for South Israel. Why is this important?

Because Jeremiah 3:8 says God put away Israel and gave her a bill of divorce. What this means is that God divorced ONLY a certain portion or group of people within Israel. Not Israel itself as a whole. God only divorced the Northern Kingdom of Israel (Which was called Israel) and not the Southern Kingdom of Israel known as Judah. Judah is still Israel because they were once all one nation known as Israel and they all descended from the man known as Israel (i.e. Jacob).

So God never divorced Israel as a whole! For Jesus is a Jew, an Israelite. Jesus is from the Lion of the tribe of Judah. For salvation is of the Jews because Jesus is the King of the Jews! What this means is that God never cast away his people of which foreknew.

Romans 11:1-5

"I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel, saying, Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life. But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal. Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace."Anyways, in conclusion:

Jeremiah 3:8 is saying that God divorced the Northern Kingdom of Israel (Not the Southern Kingdom of Israel) and in Jeremiah 3:14 he was affirming to the remaining nation of Israel known as the Southern Kingdom of Judah that he was still married to them. Judah was unfaithful, as well. But God did not divorce Judah because the promised Messiah had to come thru the line of David as promised in the Scriptures. For if God divorced Israel, then we would have a broken chain or lineage for our Messiah; And that's just not possible. This is why God never divorced Israel.

Oh, and if you want to reply back. Please see this thread here:

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3679201#post3679201

Thank you.
And may God bless you.

glorydaz
November 21st, 2013, 11:12 PM
First, you use the web to seek out information that is useful for you, so you are disqualified of making a judgment about me doing the same thing. That's kind of where I am coming at. In other words, take the beam out of your own eye first, etc.

Second, using a Jewish source that backs up the truth of God's Word does not mean that everything they teach is from the devil. Jews need to accept the Messiah but that does not mean they have no discernment of truth whatsoever about other portions of Scripture.



Scripture says God hates divorce. Jesus said he only allowed divorce in the Old Testament because of the hardness of their hearts. What does that say about God? It means that God is not capable of divorcing the nation of Israel.

For God is married to Israel as a nation. God is not married to every individual that existed within Israel. Nor is God married to every group that represents Israel either. Nor is God married to a certain portion or province state of Israel, as well. What am I talking about?

Well, lets look at a little genealogy (To see where I am coming from).

Abraham:

Would be the father of a nation. This nation would be Israel.

Isaac:

Was the son of Abraham & a type of Jesus Christ.

Jacob: (a.k.a. Israel):

Jacob is the father of the 12 tribes of Israel. For his name is Israel.

Later thru time, we see the nation of Israel (made up of the 12 tribes) divide into a:

1. Northern kingdom (Known as Israel)
2. Southern kingdom (Known as Judah)

Both Israel and Judah are technically one nation known as Israel. Judah is just the Southern name for South Israel. Why is this important?

Because Jeremiah 3:8 says God put away Israel and gave her a bill of divorce. What this means is that God divorced ONLY a certain portion or group of people within Israel. Not Israel itself as a whole. God only divorced the Northern Kingdom of Israel (Which was called Israel) and not the Southern Kingdom of Israel known as Judah. Judah is still Israel because they were once all one nation known as Israel and they all descended from the man known as Israel (i.e. Jacob).

So God never divorced Israel as a whole! For Jesus is a Jew, an Israelite. Jesus is from the Lion of the tribe of Judah. For salvation is of the Jews because Jesus is the King of the Jews! What this means is that God never cast away his people of which foreknew.

Romans 11:1-5

"I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel, saying, Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life. But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal. Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace."Anyways, in conclusion:

Jeremiah 3:8 is saying that God divorced the Northern Kingdom of Israel (Not the Southern Kingdom of Israel) and in Jeremiah 3:14 he was affirming to the remaining nation of Israel known as the Southern Kingdom of Judah that he was still married to them. Judah was unfaithful, as well. But God did not divorce Judah because the promised Messiah had to come thru the line of David as promised in the Scriptures. For if God divorced Israel, then we would have a broken chain or lineage for our Messiah; And that's just not possible. This is why God never divorced Israel.

Oh, and if you want to reply back. Please see this thread here:

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3679201#post3679201

Thank you.
And may God bless you.

You're a total waste of time, Jason. :nono:

intojoy
November 22nd, 2013, 12:04 AM
Although it is indeed true that some of God's promises are conditional, Salvation is NEVER conditional.


Amen. What? Is he doing this again (Jason)? Tell him.


Posted from the TOL App!

intojoy
November 22nd, 2013, 12:05 AM
You're a total waste of time, Jason. :nono:


Lmao

Took you long enough.


Posted from the TOL App!

Jason0047
November 22nd, 2013, 04:22 AM
Amen. What? Is he doing this again (Jason)? Tell him.

It's not that I am doing it again as if I keep going back and forth between believing one way and then another way. I have always believed in Conditional Salvation (Without knowing the official name) since I was born again in 1992. Even before I knew about Conditional Salvation actually was before I had backslidden in my faith, I knew deep down that doing wrong (and not confessing of it and turning from that wrong) did not put me in a right relationship with God. Later, in 2010 when I renewed my faith in the Lord, I started to truly study God's Word and theology and that is when I discovered what Conditional Salvation was by name.

However, make no mistake, though; People who believe they can do evil and think they are in God's good graces and or that they are going to Heaven are only deceiving themselves or they have seared their conscience because of their love for sin. But Jesus would say to them that he would wish they were hot or cold and not luke warm. In other words, it is better if a person is cold (unbelieving) because they will then recognize their need for a Savior under the right conditions. Which is true repentance. A repentance that does not end with a one time prayer but it is a repentance of one's life completely turning around and surrending one's all to God (putting away sin (with confession & asking the Lord for help to stop) and living a fruitful for God).

Jason0047
November 22nd, 2013, 04:30 AM
I mean, think about it. Is not having Jesus (God) living within you the source of salvation? (1 John 5:12) So salvation is a loving relationship with God. It is not a super power that is given to you.

So if salvation is a loving relationship with the Lord, what loving relationship in the real world is not based on it being conditional?

Can a husband cheat on his wife (with her knowing) and say that he loves her and still be accepted by her?

Can a man keep kicking and hurting his pet dog and expect that dog to love him in the same way as the other person who treats their dog good?

Is not your love for sin (or the lack of not confessing one's sin or by refusing to say you are sorry) cheating on God?

Jason0047
November 22nd, 2013, 04:34 AM
This is why believing in a perfect Word of God for our day is so important. One will not say to themselves that the Scriptures that talk about "Condtional Salvation" are a mistranslation. For one should let the Word of God correct them and not the other way around. For we know that not all versions of the Bible say the same thing. These changes are subtle to influence you ever so slightly away from the pure Word that has been preserved for our day (i.e. the KJV).

For example: the NIV, NLT, ESV, NASB, HCSB, NET, GWT, ASV, CEV, GNT, and other translations take out the words "walk... after the Spirit" in Romans 8:1 KJV. This it the whole thrust or climax to Paul's argument at the end of Romans chapter 7. For to be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace (Romans 8:6).

In other words, it is not a coincidence that all your Modern Translations (Taken from Westcott and Hort's Greek texts) have watered down certain passages that can make one believe that they can live however they like and still be saved. It's not a coincidence. The devil hates God's Word and he will do everything in his power to deceive people into not obeying God's Word.

kiwimacahau
June 15th, 2015, 06:27 PM
This is why believing in a perfect Word of God for our day is so important. One will not say to themselves that the Scriptures that talk about "Condtional Salvation" are a mistranslation. For one should let the Word of God correct them and not the other way around. For we know that not all versions of the Bible say the same thing. These changes are subtle to influence you ever so slightly away from the pure Word that has been preserved for our day (i.e. the KJV).

For example: the NIV, NLT, ESV, NASB, HCSB, NET, GWT, ASV, CEV, GNT, and other translations take out the words "walk... after the Spirit" in Romans 8:1 KJV. This it the whole thrust or climax to Paul's argument at the end of Romans chapter 7. For to be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace (Romans 8:6).

In other words, it is not a coincidence that all your Modern Translations (Taken from Westcott and Hort's Greek texts) have watered down certain passages that can make one believe that they can live however they like and still be saved. It's not a coincidence. The devil hates God's Word and he will do everything in his power to deceive people into not obeying God's Word.

Heiferdust!

CabinetMaker
June 15th, 2015, 06:34 PM
All I can say is I love my NIV. To date nobody has been able to prove that it us inferior to the KJV. People have posted lots of lists of differences but that us all they are: differences. Saying one is better than the other is nothing more than a statement of preference.

StanJ
June 15th, 2015, 06:45 PM
http://www.av1611.org/niv.html


Terry Watkins is the worst of the KJVO movement and it's most vocal and vehement. He has NO cred whatsoever. This misanthropic individual is typical of those that THINK they have a unique message from God.

Here is what Daniel Wallace, a REAL and proven credentialed scholar, has to say about the KJV.

https://bible.org/article/why-i-do-not-think-king-james-bible-best-translation-available-today

Daniel1611
June 15th, 2015, 09:18 PM
I recommend the films New World Order Bible Versions and A Lamp in the Dark. They should both be on YouTube. And also the book Defending the King James Bible by D.A. Waite.

But most importantly I recommend the KJV Bible. The word of God is sharper than any two edged sword.

Daniel1611
June 15th, 2015, 09:20 PM
All I can say is I love my NIV. To date nobody has been able to prove that it us inferior to the KJV. People have posted lots of lists of differences but that us all they are: differences. Saying one is better than the other is nothing more than a statement of preference.

It is not. Do some research on the Textus Receptus and the Masoreric and compare it to Codex Varicanus and Codex Sinnaiticus. The TR and Masoreric texts are superior to the N/A texts. The translation if the KJV is also superior to that of the NIV. Read the book Translators Revisited.

CabinetMaker
June 16th, 2015, 12:19 PM
It is not. Do some research on the Textus Receptus and the Masoreric and compare it to Codex Varicanus and Codex Sinnaiticus. The TR and Masoreric texts are superior to the N/A texts. The translation if the KJV is also superior to that of the NIV. Read the book Translators Revisited.
I have. Lots of differences but nothing that definitively proves one is better than the other. Your preference is noted, but useless.

Mocking You
June 16th, 2015, 12:55 PM
Why does the KJV teach that God doesn't keep His promises?

Num. 14:34--"After the number of the days in which ye searched the land, even forty days, each day for a year, shall ye bear your iniquities, even forty years, and ye shall know my breach of promise." [KJV]

Num. 14:34--For forty years—one year for each of the forty days you explored the land—you will suffer for your sins and know what it is like to have me against you.’ [NIV]

Mocking You
June 16th, 2015, 12:55 PM
Why does the KJV teach not to oppose idolatry?

Ex. 22:28--"Thou shalt not revile the gods, nor curse the ruler of thy people." [KJV]

Ex. 22:28--"Do not blaspheme God or curse the ruler of your people." [NIV]

Mocking You
June 16th, 2015, 12:56 PM
How old was Ahaziah when he became king?

Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign [KJV] II Kings 8:26
Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign [KJV] II Chronicles 22:2

Ahaziah was twenty-two years old when he became king [NIV] II Kings 8:26
Ahaziah was twenty-two years old when he became king [NIV] II Chronicles 22:2

Mocking You
June 16th, 2015, 12:57 PM
Naughty figs? Jeremiah 24:2

...and the other basket had very naughty figs [KJV]
...the other basket had very bad figs [NIV]

Mocking You
June 16th, 2015, 12:59 PM
How many stalls of horses? 1 Kings 4:26,

And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen. [KJV] 1 Kings 4:26

And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen. [KJV] II Chron. 9:25


26 Solomon also had four thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horses. [NIV] 1 Kings 4:26

25 Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horses [NIV] II Chron. 9:25

StanJ
June 16th, 2015, 02:42 PM
I recommend the films New World Order Bible Versions and A Lamp in the Dark. They should both be on YouTube. And also the book Defending the King James Bible by D.A. Waite.

But most importantly I recommend the KJV Bible. The word of God is sharper than any two edged sword.


Are you JW?

StanJ
June 16th, 2015, 02:55 PM
It is not. Do some research on the Textus Receptus and the Masoreric and compare it to Codex Varicanus and Codex Sinnaiticus. The TR and Masoreric texts are superior to the N/A texts. The translation if the KJV is also superior to that of the NIV. Read the book Translators Revisited.


YOU, obviously know NOT of what you speak. The NA is a standard today and has been for years. The "critical texts" are what ALL modern English translations have used for the last 65 years, as the TR was demonstrated to clearly be inferior to the "critical texts'.

Daniel1611
June 16th, 2015, 03:50 PM
YOU, obviously know NOT of what you speak. The NA is a standard today and has been for years. The "critical texts" are what ALL modern English translations have used for the last 65 years, as the TR was demonstrated to clearly be inferior to the "critical texts'.

Please explain why a text like Sinnaiticus is superior to the TR. There is one copy of Sinnaiticus. There are many copies of the TR. If every copy of the TR says one thing and Codex Sinnaiticus says another, why should I trust the one off text? The critical texts are joke translated by apostates. No thanks. Keep the HIV if you want but I would throw it in the trash.

Daniel1611
June 16th, 2015, 03:54 PM
How many stalls of horses? 1 Kings 4:26,

And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen. [KJV] 1 Kings 4:26

And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen. [KJV] II Chron. 9:25


26 Solomon also had four thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horses. [NIV] 1 Kings 4:26

25 Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horses [NIV] II Chron. 9:25

So Solomon had 40 thousands stalls for horses for his chariots. 4 thousand were used to hold horses AND chariots. There is no contradiction. I'll make a full thread to answer your pretend errors from the KJV when time allows. Throw away the HIV though. It was translated by unbelievers and homosexuals

StanJ
June 16th, 2015, 03:54 PM
Please explain why a text like Sinnaiticus is superior to the TR. There is one copy of Sinnaiticus. There are many copies of the TR. If every copy of the TR says one thing and Codex Sinnaiticus says another, why should I trust the one off text? The critical texts are joke translated by apostates. No thanks. Keep the HIV if you want but I would throw it in the trash.


I don't need to explain anything.....it's already decided by credentialed scholars. Unless you can demonstrate you have equal or superior credentials, you offer NO credulity whatsoever.

CabinetMaker
June 16th, 2015, 04:00 PM
So Solomon had 40 thousands stalls for horses for his chariots. 4 thousand were used to hold horses AND chariots. There is no contradiction. I'll make a full thread to answer your pretend errors from the KJV when time allows. Throw away the HIV though. It was translated by unbelievers and homosexuals
That is not what the KJV says at all. What you just did is called rationalization. It is an attempt on your part to gloss over an obvious contradiction in the KJV.

Daniel1611
June 16th, 2015, 04:07 PM
I don't need to explain anything.....it's already decided by credentialed scholars. Unless you can demonstrate you have equal or superior credentials, you offer NO credulity whatsoever.

Ooooh so scholars say its better. Read Translators Revisited if you want to read about scholars.

Daniel1611
June 16th, 2015, 04:09 PM
That is not what the KJV says at all. What you just did is called rationalization. It is an attempt on your part to gloss over an obvious contradiction in the KJV.

It says 40,000 for horses and 4,000 for horses AND chariots. No contradiction.

Mocking You
June 16th, 2015, 05:32 PM
It says 40,000 for horses and 4,000 for horses AND chariots. No contradiction.

I see. So he had 44,000 horses and 4,000 chariots yet only had 12,000 horsemen. M-Kay.

Daniel1611
June 16th, 2015, 05:36 PM
I see. So he had 44,000 horses and 4,000 chariots yet only had 12,000 horsemen. M-Kay.

If each commanded a chariot team, which they would have, then yes. A chariot team uses multiple horses and drivers. Gosh, the NIV must've dumbed its readers down.

Mocking You
June 16th, 2015, 05:46 PM
If each commanded a chariot team, which they would have, then yes. A chariot team uses multiple horses and drivers. Gosh, the NIV must've dumbed its readers down.

Chariot teams typically consisted of two or four horses. So 4,000 chariots could use 16,000 horses, max. Yet the KJV says there were 40,000 horses. Hmmm...

Personal attack with noted.

Daniel1611
June 16th, 2015, 06:32 PM
Chariot teams typically consisted of two or four horses. So 4,000 chariots could use 16,000 horses, max. Yet the KJV says there were 40,000 horses. Hmmm...

Personal attack with noted.

He had more horses than chariots. You have to change horses because the horses get tired. I doubt a king like Solomon had just enough horses. He probably had an excess. Or maybe not all of the horses were for chariots. He probably used some for other things. I.E. some were for chariots, some were for messengers, some did other work. I dont know for sure because it doesn't say, but for something to be a contradiction, you have 2 have two statements that cannot both be true. Saying he had 40,000 horses and 4 thousand stalks for horses and chariots leaves far too many possibilities to say its not true.

StanJ
June 16th, 2015, 08:35 PM
Ooooh so scholars say its better. Read Translators Revisited if you want to read about scholars.

Again your layman's opinion of scholars carries NO weight at all, and posting a non-existent title just confirms your lack of credibility.

Daniel1611
June 16th, 2015, 08:38 PM
Again your layman's opinion of scholars carries NO weight at all, and posting a non-existent title just confirms your lack of credibility.

I couldn't care less about what scholars say. Many scholars say there is no God at all. Scholars mean nothing to me. All one needs is the Holy Spirit and the Bible. I don't need Christ denying scholars like Darby to tell me about the Bible.

StanJ
June 16th, 2015, 08:42 PM
I couldn't care less about what scholars say. Many scholars say there is no God at all. Scholars mean nothing to me. All one needs is the Holy Spirit and the Bible. I don't need Christ denying scholars like Darby to tell me about the Bible.


another example of just how LITTLE you really know. Go troll somewhere else.

Daniel1611
June 16th, 2015, 08:43 PM
another example of just how LITTLE you really know. Go troll somewhere else.

Still waiting for one single reason why the critical text is better than the TR.

StanJ
June 16th, 2015, 08:49 PM
Still waiting for one single reason why the critical text is better than the TR.

Just as soon as you provide one that shows it isn't. You started with the opining so don't expect anything different from me.

Daniel1611
June 16th, 2015, 08:51 PM
Just as soon as you provide one that shows it isn't. You started with the opining so don't expect anything different from me.

So you dont have any reasons why one off texts found in a garbage can are better than one that was copied thousands of times, handed down over millennia and translated to English by the most brilliant Christians of their day. Noted.

Mocking You
June 16th, 2015, 09:01 PM
I couldn't care less about what scholars say. Scholars mean nothing to me.

El Oh El! Thanks for the laugh!


All one needs is the Holy Spirit and the Bible. I don't need Christ denying scholars like Darby to tell me about the Bible.

How in the world does Darby come up in this conversation?

Daniel1611
June 16th, 2015, 09:05 PM
El Oh El! Thanks for the laugh!



How in the world does Darby come up in this conversation?

He was the major early supporter of the critical text.

Mocking You
June 16th, 2015, 09:06 PM
So you dont have any reasons why one off texts found in a garbage can are better than one that was copied thousands of times, handed down over millennia and translated to English by the most brilliant Christians of their day. Noted.

Found in a garbage can? Really, that old chestnut? But let's say it was. Let's say it went unread for centuries (that's how the story goes, anyway.) One could argue that is how God preserved his word. Uncopied, untouched, just waiting to be brought out into the light of day in the 19th century.

The Critical Text is better because it is older and therefore more closer to the original documents, precisely because it hasn't been copied thousands of times.

Furthermore, every time the text is copied you have the possibility of introducing copyist errors. Or you get copyists that act like amateur Bible editors and insert words that weren't in the original texts.

Daniel1611
June 16th, 2015, 09:10 PM
Found in a garbage can? Really, that old chestnut? But let's say it was. Let's say it went unread for centuries (that's how the story goes, anyway.) One could argue that is how God preserved his word. Uncopied, untouched, just waiting to be brought out into the light of day in the 19th century.

The Critical Text is better because it is older and therefore more closer to the original documents, precisely because it hasn't been copied thousands of times.

Furthermore, every time the text is copied you have the possibility of introducing copyist errors. Or you get copyists that act like amateur Bible editors and insert words that weren't in the original texts.

If I wrote down a recipe for my home made chicken soup and thousands of copies existed that were all the same, and there was one that disagreed, would you say the one off is correct,? The differences in copies of the TR are all superficial. They all say one thing then the critical text, a one off, says something different. Which one should I accept? The answer is obvious

Mocking You
June 16th, 2015, 09:18 PM
He was the major early supporter of the critical text.

Darby died in 1882; Westcott and Hort's New Testament came out in 1881. How much of it could he have read?

Or are you saying that Darby had access to Tischendorf's New Testament, which was kept in St. Petersburg, Russia?

Mocking You
June 16th, 2015, 09:21 PM
If I wrote down a recipe for my home made chicken soup and thousands of copies existed that were all the same, and there was one that disagreed, would you say the one off is correct,?

That's a false choice. I'd say that all copies were accurate copies of the original. It says nothing about the accuracy of the original, just that the copies were faithful reproductions of it.



The differences in copies of the TR are all superficial. They all say one thing then the critical text, a one off, says something different. Which one should I accept? The answer is obvious.

It's not obvious because the most learned Bible scholars don't agree with you. Oh, that's right--you have no use for them.

StanJ
June 17th, 2015, 12:11 PM
So you dont have any reasons why one off texts found in a garbage can are better than one that was copied thousands of times, handed down over millennia and translated to English by the most brilliant Christians of their day. Noted.


You call this a valid response? I call it here say and prevarication.

StanJ
June 17th, 2015, 12:13 PM
How in the world does Darby come up in this conversation?

I think Darby is his great grandfather figure. At 25 years old he is definitely lacking a few pieces of info.

Daniel1611
June 17th, 2015, 02:15 PM
You call this a valid response? I call it here say and prevarication.

You have yet to provide any actual evidence that the critical text is superior to the TR. Saying that "scholars" accept it isn't proof. Many scholars accept the TR. Many scholars don't believe in the Bible at all. You have offered 0 evidence.

kiwimacahau
June 17th, 2015, 02:19 PM
Yet you are quite willing to play the 'scholar' card when it supports your contention that the TR is superior.

Daniel1611
June 17th, 2015, 02:25 PM
Yet you are quite willing to play the 'scholar' card when it supports your contention that the TR is superior.

No. I stated that the people who translated it into English, the KJV, were brilliant scholars. This says nothing of the TR, only that the KJV is an accurate translation. I gave other reasons why I accept the TR.

kiwimacahau
June 17th, 2015, 02:33 PM
The KJV is an ok translation. There are better.

Daniel1611
June 17th, 2015, 02:35 PM
The KJV is an ok translation. There are better.

Such as? Out of the gate, if its translated from the critical text as nearly all moder. Bible are, it is inferior.

kiwimacahau
June 17th, 2015, 02:40 PM
You claim 'all modern bibles are inferior'. Proof please. Your KJV only bias is showing.

StanJ
June 17th, 2015, 02:41 PM
You have yet to provide any actual evidence that the critical text is superior to the TR. Saying that "scholars" accept it isn't proof. Many scholars accept the TR. Many scholars don't believe in the Bible at all. You have offered 0 evidence.

As soon as you do, I will refute it with my own. Until then, you opinion is just that, and NOT a very well informed one.

Daniel1611
June 17th, 2015, 03:08 PM
As soon as you do, I will refute it with my own. Until then, you opinion is just that, and NOT a very well informed one.

Number one. Hundreds of copies of the TR exist and have been handed down over the millenia with only superficial differences among copies. Your move.

StanJ
June 17th, 2015, 03:10 PM
Number one. Hundreds of copies of the TR exist and have been handed down over the millenia with only superficial differences among copies. Your move.


I didn't ask for more opining from you, I asked for facts. Your opinion means absolutely nothing here.

Daniel1611
June 17th, 2015, 03:11 PM
You claim 'all modern bibles are inferior'. Proof please. Your KJV only bias is showing.

I don't hide my bias. I'm KJV only. Why would I want to use some garbage translation like the HIV or NLT when I have the KJV? The devil promotes false Bible version to cast doubt on God's word.

Daniel1611
June 17th, 2015, 03:13 PM
I didn't ask for more opining from you, I asked for facts. Your opinion means absolutely nothing here.

So its an opinion that there are hundreds of copies of the TR? I do t get it. You sound more like an unsaved troll than someone here for a discussion. I've had the KJV only discussion with members here that I respect like AngelForTruth. You just seem more interested in trolling.

CabinetMaker
June 17th, 2015, 03:16 PM
I don't hide my bias. I'm KJV only. Why would I want to use some garbage translation like the HIV or NLT when I have the KJV? The devil promotes false Bible version to cast doubt on God's word.
Can a person be saved while reading the NIV?

Daniel1611
June 17th, 2015, 03:19 PM
Can a person be saved while reading the NIV?

Possibly. I'm sure people have. But with all the footnotes and contradictions in the NIV, it would be easy to conclude that you can't trust the Bible. But the KJV doesn't cast doubt. It has power because its God's word. If there were other versions that were faithful to the TR and were translated by Christians, they would be acceptable to me. I don't have a problem with the Bishops or Geneva.

Mocking You
June 17th, 2015, 03:22 PM
No. I stated that the people who translated it into English, the KJV, were brilliant scholars. This says nothing of the TR, only that the KJV is an accurate translation.

Yes, it's a fine translation if it were the 1600's. It's not. Therefore all the old archaic words and phrases could be stumbling blocks to reading the Bible, especially to new Christians.

Daniel1611
June 17th, 2015, 03:24 PM
Yes, it's a fine translation if it were the 1600's. It's not. Therefore all the old archaic words and phrases could be stumbling blocks to reading the Bible, especially to new Christians.

A bible that's missing verses is more of a stumbling block. You can get a KJV that has aittle dictionary. The NIV just leaves out verses and changes others.

StanJ
June 17th, 2015, 03:27 PM
So its an opinion that there are hundreds of copies of the TR? I do t get it. You sound more like an unsaved troll than someone here for a discussion. I've had the KJV only discussion with members here that I respect like AngelForTruth. You just seem more interested in trolling.


You're NOT discussing, you are making assertions WITHOUT proof or citation. I call them opinions to be kind, and I'm not talking to AFT am I?

Contribute something valid or stop responding to my posts.

Daniel1611
June 17th, 2015, 03:29 PM
You're NOT discussing, you are making assertions WITHOUT proof or citation. I call them opinions to be kind, and I'm not talking to AFT am I?

Contribute something valid or stop responding to my posts.

Gladly. I have No need for unsaved heretics. Deuces.

StanJ
June 17th, 2015, 03:34 PM
A bible that's missing verses is more of a stumbling block. You can get a KJV that has aittle dictionary. The NIV just leaves out verses and changes others.

Errors where the KJV translation disagrees with the Textus Receptus:

KJV translates...
Textus Receptus actually says...

"robbers of churches." Acts 19:37
Every known Greek manuscript has HIEROSULOUS, "robbers of temples"
"Lucifer" Is 14:12
"O Day Star" (Lucifer is a human origin nickname for the Devil in the 1600's refers not to the devil but the king of Babylon)
"Easter" Acts 12:4
"Passover"(Easter very poor choice as it confuses the pagan origin Roman Catholic "Easter" holy day with what the TR clearly says is the Jewish Passover!)
"Baptism" (entire New Testament) Acts 2:38; 22:16
immersion, because sprinkling was the mode of baptism in 1611AD, they jelly-fished out and transliterated the Greek "baptizo" but refused to translate it.
"Tithes of all I possess" Lk 18:12
"all I acquire" (Not only variant with the TR, but quite wrong. Tithes were never paid on capital, only increase)
"Schoolmaster" Gal 3:24
"attendant" (the law was the one who brought us to Christ, not taught us about Christ)
"God save the King": 1Sam 10:24, 2Sam 16:16, 1Kings 1:25
"May the king live" ("God" not in TR, but reflects the British culture of the 1600's. Proof that the translators used dynamic equivalents.)
"God Forbid." Ro. 3:4,6,31; 6:2,15; 7:7,13; 9:14; 11:1,11; 1 Co. 6:15; Ga. 2:17; 3:21; 6:14
"may it not be" or "let it not be." (KJV adds the word God where it is absent in the TR because it was a common expression in 1600's. Proof that the translators used dynamic equivalents.)
"sweet savour" Lev 6:21; 8:28; 17:6; 23:18
"soothing aroma" (KJV appeals to wrong senses- taste instead of smell in the TR)
"ashes upon his face" 1 Kings 20:38
"bandage over his eyes" (KJV varies from TR by using ashes)
"flagon" 2 Sam 6:19; 1 Chron 16:3; SoS 2:5; Hosea 3:1
These verses contain the word "flagon" which is a fluted cup from which liquid is drunk. However, the Hebrew word is "ashishah" which has always meant raisins or raisin cakes. This is especially true in Hos 3:1 because raisin cakes were often offered to idols. This is an obvious error in translation.

Mocking You
June 17th, 2015, 04:13 PM
A bible that's missing verses is more of a stumbling block. You can get a KJV that has aittle dictionary. The NIV just leaves out verses and changes others.

Surely you're not that stupid. The NIV does not contain some verses that are in the KJV because the translations use two different manuscripts. They are not "missing" because the TR is not the end-all, be-all manuscript that all others are judged against.

There are phrases and words in the NIV that are "missing" from the KJV.

Furthermore, there are verses that were added to the KJV by copyists.

And, no, I shouldn't need to carry around a dictionary to read the Bible.

Mocking You
June 17th, 2015, 04:20 PM
Errors where the KJV translation disagrees with the Textus Receptus:


Snip list.

Stan, we could list verses that are mistranslated in the KJV for hours. Won't matter to Daniel1611. He just ignores them and makes personal attacks.

One of my go-to verses to illustrate this is Daniel 7:9. Even the Geneva Bible, which predates the KJV got it right, whereas the KJV has it wrong.

Daniel 7:9 Thrones “cast down” or thrones “set up”?

I beheld until the thrones were cast down.. [KJV]
As I looked, thrones were set in place… [NIV]
I beheld until the thrones were set up.. [Geneva]

StanJ
June 17th, 2015, 06:53 PM
Snip list.

Stan, we could list verses that are mistranslated in the KJV for hours. Won't matter to Daniel1611. He just ignores them and makes personal attacks.
One of my go-to verses to illustrate this is Daniel 7:9. Even the Geneva Bible, which predates the KJV got it right, whereas the KJV has it wrong.
Daniel 7:9 Thrones “cast down” or thrones “set up”?
I beheld until the thrones were cast down.. [KJV]
As I looked, thrones were set in place… [NIV]
I beheld until the thrones were set up.. [Geneva]

Yeh, I get that, and don't really post FOR him, but FOR others who may not know or may be seduced by his rhetoric.

Psalmist
June 19th, 2015, 03:35 PM
The KJV hasn't been revised several times since 1611, I have heard it said that the KJV that is being read today is not completely in text of the original KJV.

Psalmist
June 19th, 2015, 03:37 PM
That's hasn't it been revised several times since 1611.

CabinetMaker
June 19th, 2015, 03:47 PM
The KJV hasn't been revised several times since 1611, I have heard it said that the KJV that is being read today is not completely in text of the original KJV.
The version that is used today is the 1796 edition.

StanJ
June 19th, 2015, 03:57 PM
The KJV hasn't been revised several times since 1611, I have heard it said that the KJV that is being read today is not completely in text of the original KJV.

Yes, but KJVOers will say that they were inconsequential, regardless of the fact that the original translators (5o CoE scholars) even stated on the opening page that it was "TRANSLATED OUT OF THE ORIGINAL TONGUES, DILIGENTLY COMPARED AND REVISED."
They never claimed inspiration or infallibility in their work. They also stated that they hoped the CoE would reap good fruit and that King James was the principle Mover and Author of the work.
One can then ask themselves if they really believe King James was inspired by God to render a perfect English version through 50 biased and totally intimidated CoE clergy?

StanJ
June 19th, 2015, 03:58 PM
The version that is used today is the 1796 edition.


I have a version at home that is dated 1866 and came to me through my mother's mother, who was born in England.

Mocking You
June 19th, 2015, 04:45 PM
Yes, but KJVOers will say that they were inconsequential, regardless of the fact that the original translators (5o CoE scholars) even stated on the opening page that it was "TRANSLATED OUT OF THE ORIGINAL TONGUES, DILIGENTLY COMPARED AND REVISED."

Depending on who you listen to there are either "over 500" or "over 1,000" or "over 2,000" changes to the 1611 text. Most of these are trivial, like:

you changed to ye
fro changed to from
amongst changed to among

etc.

BUT, there is one significant change made to a later edition that does radically change the meaning of the text:

Compare Gen. 2:21 in pre-1769 KJV and post 1769 KJV:

Pre: And the LORD God caused a deepe sleepe to fall vpon Adam, and hee slept; and he tooke one of his ribs, and closed vp the flesh in stead thereof.

Post: And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof

Here is a partial list of some changes:
http://www.bible-researcher.com/canon10.html

everready
June 19th, 2015, 08:50 PM
Snip list.

Stan, we could list verses that are mistranslated in the KJV for hours. Won't matter to Daniel1611. He just ignores them and makes personal attacks.

One of my go-to verses to illustrate this is Daniel 7:9. Even the Geneva Bible, which predates the KJV got it right, whereas the KJV has it wrong.

Daniel 7:9 Thrones “cast down” or thrones “set up”?

I beheld until the thrones were cast down.. [KJV]
As I looked, thrones were set in place… [NIV]
I beheld until the thrones were set up.. [Geneva]

If i may ask what's your bottom line here, what do you think the verse means, my first impression is that it means the same thing just said differently?

everready