Battle Royale XIV discussion thread

genuineoriginal

New member
Hi go. Sound rebuttal to my arguments, sir. Really deep stuff you give us here.:duh:
I gave a sound rebuttal to your preference for the Vatican's Lucifer instead of the Hebrew or Greek words. (here)

You ignored it.

It is good to see you found out how to use the smileys, though.
:thumb:

You are right about my belief that the KJB is always right.
That is your belief.

My belief is GOD is always right, even if men are liars.
That extends to the translations made by men.
God is always right, even if the translations have errors.

You probably can't see it, but my beliefs come from the Bible itself, not some wishful desire for something that God never promised.

But I reached this conclusion from studying the issues more and praying that God would show me the truth.
I have read some of the study you have done.
Your comparison of the KJV to the other translations has convinced me that the KJV is very full of errors and has produced many more false doctrines than any other version.

Even so, it is still a Good Book and a decent translation of the Word of God.

I gave lots of historic and grammatical reasons as to why Easter is correct in Acts 12:4. A lot more went into this than just "He believes "The King James Bible is always right."
Every thing you put into your article was nullified by your statement that "The King James Bible is always right" because that one statement said all the research was too clouded by confirmation bias to be of any scholarly use.

Anyone trying to use your research would have to try to pick out the parts that were put there by your confirmation bias and try to identify what you (intentionally or unintentionally) left out because of that same confirmation bias.

The sad thing is that you can't even admit that to yourself.
 

Angel4Truth

New member
Hall of Fame
Hi Angel. I do not apologize for calling people like you "Bible agnostics" (you do not know for sure what God said or didn't say in His book) or "unbelievers in the inerrancy of any Bible". That is what you are. Now, if you think this is slandering your good name, then all you have to do to prove I am wrong, is to simply tell us exactly which Bible in print out there is this inerrant words of God Book you supposedly believe in. Will you do that for us?


And I think your comments were silly. Can you read complete sentences? You just picked out part of the sentence and ignored the rest of it.

It's sort of like saying "See, the Bible says There is no God."

Yes, it does. But the whole sentence is "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God."

Here is the WHOLE sentence AND the context-

Quote:
Now to the later we answer; that we do not deny, nay we affirm and avow, that THE VERY MEANEST TRANSLATION OF THE BIBLE IN ENGLIH, SET FORTH BY MEN OF OUR PROFESSION (FOR WE HAVE SEEN NONE OF THEIRS of the whole Bible as yet) contains the word of God, nay, is the word of God. "

They were contrasting the Reformation Bibles from the Roman Catholic version. The Douay-Rheims New Testament was done in 1582. They did not come out with the entire bible in English till 1610.

My article pointed out that they were contrasting the Protestant Bibles (which all pretty much followed the same texts) versus the Roman Catholic version.

And the irony is that the ESV, NIV, NASB,etc. are ALL based on the ever changing, Vatican supervised Critical Greek text.

Do you deny this?

Undeniable Proof the ESV, NIV, NASB, Holman Standard, NET etc. are the new "Vatican Versions"

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

I have a copy of the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece 27th edition right here in front of me. It is the same Greek text as the UBS (United Bible Society) 4th edition. These are the Greek readings and texts that are followed by such modern versions as the ESV, NIV, NASB, Holman Standard AND the new Catholic versions like the St. Joseph New American Bible 1970 and the New Jerusalem bible 1985 AND the Jehovah Witness New World Translation.

If you have a copy of the Nestle-Aland 27th edition, open the book and read what they tell us in their own words on page 45 of the Introduction. Here these critical Greek text editors tell us about how the Greek New Testament (GNT, now known as the UBS) and the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece grew together and shared the same basic text.In the last paragraph on page 45 we read these words:

"The text shared by these two editions was adopted internationally by Bible Societies, and FOLLOWING AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE VATICAN AND THE UNITED BIBLE SOCIETIES IT HAS SERVED AS THE BASIS FOR NEW TRANSLATIONS AND FOR REVISIONS MADE UNDER THEIR SUPERVISION. THIS MARKS A SIGNIFICANT STEP WITH REGARD TO INTERCONFESSIONAL RELATIONSHIPS. It should naturally be understood that this text is a working text: it is not to be considered as definitive, but as a stimulus to further efforts toward defining and verifying the text of the New Testament."

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


The Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity

This from their own site -

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/p...pc_chrstuni_pro_20051996_chrstuni_pro_en.html

Collaboration for the Diffusion of the Bible

“Following the responsibility undertaken by the then Secretariat for the preparation of the dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, the PCPCU was entrusted with promoting ecumenical collaboration for the translation and diffusion of Holy Scripture (Dei Verbum, n. 22). In this context, it encouraged the formation of the Catholic Biblical Federation, with which it is in close contact. TOGETHER WITH THE UNITED BIBLE SOCIETIES IT PUBLISHED THE GUIDELINES FOR INTERCONFESSIONAL COOPERATION IN TRANSLATING THE BIBLE.” (1968; new revised edition 1987).

And again, you have equivocated and not touched even one of my questions at all.
 

CabinetMaker

Member of the 10 year club on TOL!!
Hall of Fame
Consider that, more often than not; how a word is used gives you its intended sense.

What did the word "mouse" come to mean - by how it was used by the late Steve Jobs (may he have known and or found the Lord)?

The KJB is often much like that.

In some cases yes, in other cases no. And the majority of readers will never take the time to learn the difference.
 

CabinetMaker

Member of the 10 year club on TOL!!
Hall of Fame
Hi CM. The simple fact of the matter is, you and most Christians like you do NOT believe that any Bible in any language is now or ever was the complete and inerrant words of God.
No idea how you reached such a silly conclusion. I use the NIV because it is the complete and inerrant word of God.

You "use" the every changing NIV. Yet nobody (including you) seriously believes it is the inerrant and 100% true words of God. Your NIV is the Comic Book of the Vatican Versions. It rejects and then adds to scores of Hebrew readings in the O.T.
It is known as a dynamic translation as it translates themes accurately. It is not a word for word translation. It is not possible to do a word for word translation between Hebrew, Greek and English. The word of God is the message as a whole, not individual words.

The NIVs continue to change both their underlying Hebrew and Greek textual basis, while it omits some 3000 words from just the N.T. Reformation text of the KJB and it contains numerous theological errors.
A list of differences between translations is just that, a list of differences. When you say that oust is obvious proof you asserting facts not supported by the evidence. For instance, you say the list proves the KJV is better because the NIV omits these versus, adds those versus and changes/adds/removes some words.

An equally valid conclusion from the same list is that it proves the NIV is better because the KJV adds these versus, omits those versus and changes/adds/removes some words.

Both conclusions are equally valid based on a list.

All this seems to be of little concern to people like you. You just want something that is "easy to read". That seems to be the mindset of so many today.
Do you think Jesus spoke in archaic languages? I believe that He spoke plainly and simply to people so that they could easily understand His Gospel. Bibles should do the same.

There is a lot more to my article called The "Old fashioned language" of the King James Bible - "Archaic and Inerrant" beats "Modernized and Wrong" Any Day of the Week"

http://www.brandplucked.webs.com/archaickjbship.htm

I hope you and others will read the whole article. I think you will learn some things you didn't know before or even consider.
Sorry, won't read it. I have done some research into this topic and the article you link to is an opinion piece from a highly biased point of view. It's propaganda.

I give some examples of these changes and I also deal with the handful of truly "archaic" words found in the KJB. But here is the part I want you to see for now.

I have made up a Vocabulary Test taken from your "easy to understand" NIV. Try giving this to most 21st century public school educated young people, and see how many of them would get a passing grade.

The NIV Vocabulary Test

abashed, abominable, abutted, acclaim, adder, adhere, admonishing, advocate, alcove, algum, allocate, allots, ally, aloes, appease, ardent, armlets, arrayed, astir, atonement, awl, banishment, battlements, behemoth, belial, bereaves, betrothed, bier, blighted, booty, brayed, breaching, breakers, buffeted, burnished, calamus, capital (not a city), carnelian, carrion, centurions, chasm, chronic, chrysolite, cistern, citadel, citron, clefts, cohorts, colonnades, complacency, coney, concession, congealed, conjure, contrite, convocations, crest, cors, curds, dandled, dappled, debauchery, decimated, deluged, denarii, depose, derides, despoil, dire, dispossess, disrepute, dissipation, distill, dissuade, divination, dragnet, dropsy, duplicity, earthenware, ebbed, ebony, emasculate, emission, encroach, enmity, enthralled, entreaty, ephod, epicurean, ewe, excrement, exodus, factions, felled, festal, fettered, figurehead, filigree, flagstaff, fomenting, forded, fowler, gadfly, galled, gird, gauntness, gecko, gloating, goiim, harrowing, haunt, hearld, henna, homers, hoopoe, ignoble, impaled, implore, incur, indignant, insatiable, insolence, intact, invoked, jambs, joists, jowls, lairs, lamentation, leviathan, libations, loins, magi, manifold, maritime, mattocks, maxims, mina, misdemeanor, mother-of-pearl, mustering, myrtles, naive, naught, Negev, Nephilim, nettles, nocturnal, nomad, notorious, Nubians, oblivion, obsolete, odious, offal, omer, oracles, overweening, parapet, parchments, pavilion, peals (noun, not the verb), perjurers, perpetuate, pestilence, pinions, phylacteries, plumage, pomp, porphyry, portent, potsherd, proconsul, propriety, poultice, Praetorium, pretext, profligate, promiscuity, provincial, providence, qualm, quarries, quivers (noun, not verb), ramparts, ransacked, ratified, ravish, rabble, rawboned, relish (not for hot dogs), recoils, recount, refrain, relent, rend, reposes, reprimanded, reputed, retinue, retorted, retribution, rifts, roebucks, rue, sachet, satraps, sated, shipwrights, siegeworks, sinews, sistrums, sledges, smelted, somber, soothsayer, sovereignty, spelt, stadia, stench, stipulation, sullen, tamarisk, tanner, temperate, tether, tetrarch, terebinth, thresher, throes, thronged, tiaras, tinder, tracts, transcends, tresses, turbulent, tyrannical, unscathed, unrelenting, usury, vassal, vaunts, vehemently, verdant, vexed, wadi, wanton, warranted, wield, winnowing and wrenched.

There are many cases where the NIV uses a harder word than the KJB. Compare the following: The NIV has “abasement” in Ezra 9:5 whereas the KJB has “heaviness.” Isaiah 24:23: “abashed” (NIV) = “confounded” (KJB). Ezekiel 40:18: “abutted” (NIV) = “over against” (KJB). 2 Chronicles 15:14: “acclamation” (NIV) = “voice” (KJB). Isaiah 13:8: “aghast” (NIV) = “amazed” (KJB) Psalm 107:5 "ebbed away" (NIV) = "fainted" (KJB). A personal favorite is “squall” (NIV) instead of “storm” (KJB) in Mark 4:37.

It is funny that I can put together the phrase from the KJB which says; "The very sad green giant was hungry” and in the NIV it would be: “The overweening dejected verdant Nephilim was famished."
In any case, you still have not answered my question: Why did God stop keeping His promise to preserve His word in 1611?
 

tetelestai

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
It wasn't about the Jews.

Yes it was.

Read the previous verse:

(Acts 12:3 KJV) And because he saw it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also. (Then were the days of unleavened bread.)

Then read verse 11:

(Acts 12:11 KJV) And when Peter was come to himself, he said, Now I know of a surety, that the Lord hath sent his angel, and hath delivered me out of the hand of Herod, and from all the expectation of the people of the Jews.
 

Danoh

New member
You can say that again.

Kind of like that time you said you don't adhere to MAD

I still don't adhere to MAD. But you know how that goes, brother; you read what you think a writer meant into their word choice. Its why you concluded Easter was the wrong word choice.
 

tetelestai

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER

brandplucked

New member
The NIV is the inerrant and complete word of God????

The NIV is the inerrant and complete word of God????

Originally Posted by brandplucked
Hi CM. The simple fact of the matter is, you and most Christians like you do NOT believe that any Bible in any language is now or ever was the complete and inerrant words of God.




No idea how you reached such a silly conclusion. I use the NIV because it is the complete and inerrant word of God.

Hi CM. Really? Sir, I don't believe you. Let's put your statement to the test.

IF you really believe the NIV is the inerrant words of God, then this means that NO other Bible translation in all of human history, including the ESV, NASB, NET, Holman, NKJV, Geneva Bible or any other Bible in any language is or was the complete and inerrant words of God. Why? Simply because they ALL differ, and often radically, from your Vatican supervised, ever changing NIVs.

That is, unless you are giving whole new definitions to the English words "complete and inerrant" that are not found in any dictionary known to man.

And the question then becomes "WHICH NIV are you referring to? The one done in 1973, the one done in 1977, the one done in 1984 which they don't even print anymore, or the "new" NIV 2011?



Which of your NIVs is this "complete and inerrant words of God" bible you SAY you believe in? I will just give 3 examples. I have TONS more I can show you if you like.



Well, let’s see if they did indeed “Get it right this time”

Example #1.

Mark 1:41 “Jesus moved with compassion” or “Jesus was indignant”?

In Mark 1:40 - 41 we read: “And there came a leper to him, beseeching him, and kneeling down to him, and saying unto him, If thou wilt, thou canst make me clean. And Jesus, MOVED WITH COMPASSION, put forth his hand, and touched him, and saith unto him, I will; be thou clean.”

“moved with compassion” is the reading found in the Majority of all Greek texts including Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, C, the Greek Lectionaries, the Old Latin Italic aur, c, e, f, l and q, the Vulgate, the Syriac Peshitta, Sinaitic, Harkelian, the Coptic Sahidic, Boharic, the Armenian, Ethiopian, Georgian and Slavonic ancient versions. It is even the reading found in the UBS IV critical Greek text.

“moved with compassion” is the reading found in Wycliffe 1390, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew’s Bible 1549, the Bishops’ Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, the Revised Version 1885, the ASV 1901, Douay, Darby, Young’s, Lamsa’s translation of the Syriac, the RSV, NRSV, 1989, ESV 2001, NASB 1963 - 1995, Dan Wallace's NET version 2006, Holman Standard 2003, the International Standard Version and the Jubilee Bible 2000-2010 to name but a few.

The NIV 1973, 1978 and 1984 all read: “FILLED WITH COMPASSION, Jesus reached out his hand and touched the man. “I am willing,” he said. “Be clean!”

And even the Spanish version of the NIV reads the same. Marcos 1:41 (Nueva Versión Internacional 1999) “Movido a compasión, Jesús extendió la mano y tocó al hombre, diciéndole: — Sí quiero. ¡Queda limpio! “ As does also the NIV Portuguese edition Nova Versão Internacional of 1999 - "Cheio de compaixão, Jesus estendeu a mão, tocou nele e disse: “Quero. Seja purificado!”

Well, the 2011 NIV finally did it!

Here it is - Mark 1:41 (New International Version, ©2011)

41. "Jesus WAS INDIGNANT.[a] He reached out his hand and touched the man. “I am willing,” he said. “Be clean!”

Footnotes: Mark 1:41 Many manuscripts Jesus was filled with compassion.

Example #2.


Acts 10:30 KJB - “And Cornelius said, FOUR days ago I was fasting until this hour; and at the ninth hour I prayed in my house, and, behold, a man stood before me in bright clothing.”

NIV - 1973, 1978 and 1984 editions - “Cornelius answered: “FOUR days ago I was in my house praying at this hour, at three in the afternoon. Suddenly a man in shining clothes stood before me”

NIV 2011 edition - “Cornelius answered: “THREE days ago I was in my house praying at this hour, at three in the afternoon. Suddenly a man in shining clothes stood before me”

So, was it FOUR days ago, or THREE days ago?

The reading of FOUR days ago is that of virtually every manuscript and Bible translation in existence all through history.

FOUR days ago is that of the Majority of all Greek manuscripts including Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, A, C, the Old Latin copies, the Syriac Peshitta, Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopian and Georgian ancient versions.

FOUR days ago is the reading of the Latin Vulgate, the Geneva bible, KJB, NKJV, RV, ASV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, NASB, NET and is the Greek text of even their own UBS/Nestle-Aland, ever changing Greek text put out under the supervision of the Vatican.

The NIV itself followed this reading - FOUR days ago - in their first 3 editions - 1973, 1978 and 1984. The NIV Spanish version 1999 and the NIV Portuguese Version 2000 both read “FOUR days ago”.

But in 2011 the NIV “scholars” decided to change their text and it now reads THREE days ago.

This reading was found in only ONE known Greek manuscript - manuscript D original. But some scribe caught this erroneous reading in D original and corrected it to read FOUR days ago. So the only known manuscript in history that read THREE days ago, was one that itself was corrected to read FOUR days ago.

So, who else follows this reading of THREE days ago? Can you take a wild guess? The MODERN Roman Catholic versions.

Even the previous Douay-Rheims bible of 1582 read “FOUR days ago”, but the 1950 Catholic Douay version, the 1970 St. Joseph New American bible and the 1985 New Jerusalem bible all unite to read “THREE days ago”. Just a “coinkidink”, huh?


Example #3


Luke 10:42 How many things are needed? "ONE THING" or "A FEW THINGS"? Bible Babble Buffet at its Best.


King James Bible - Luke 10:42 - But ONE THING IS NEEDFUL: and Mary hath chosen that good part, which shall not be taken away from her.”

NASB 1963-1977 editions - “But ONLY A FEW THINGS ARE NECESSARY, REALLY ONLY ONE, for Mary has chosen the good part, which shall not be taken away from her.”

NASB 1995 edition - “But ONLY ONE THING IS NECESSARY, for Mary has chosen the good part, which shall not be taken away from her.”

NIV 1973, 1978 and 1982 editions - "BUT ONLY ONE THING IS NEEDED. Mary has chosen what is better, and it will not be taken from her."

NIV 2011 edition - "BUT FEW THINGS ARE NEEDED - OR INDEED ONLY ONE. Mary has chosen what is better, and it will not be taken from her."

Did you notice that both the NASB and the NIV changed THE TEXT from one edition to another, AND that they REVERSED THEIR CHOICES? What is going on here in Bible Babble Buffet Land?


http://brandplucked.webs.com/luke1042onethingneedfl.htm

So, Cabinet Maker, WHICH of your NIVs is this "complete and inerrant words of God" you profess to believe in?

Thanks.
 
Top