• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.
  4. There have been some changes in the Life Stages section involving the following forums: Roaring 20s, Terrific Thirties, Fabulous Forties, and Golden Eagles. They are changed to Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, and Golden Eagles will have a slight change.
  5. CF Staff, Angels and Ambassadors; ask that you join us in praying for the world in this difficult time, asking our Holy Father to stop the spread of the virus, and for healing of all affected.

Every Man For Himself Bible Versionism

Discussion in 'Christian Scriptures' started by brandplucked, Jan 6, 2011.

  1. brandplucked

    brandplucked Member Supporter

    769
    +15
    Christian
    Every Man for Himself Bible Versions - the HCSB, NET, ESV, NIV, TNIV, NKJV

    "In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes." Judges 21:25

    For those who have ears to hear and can see through the Double-Speak, inconsistency and logical fallacies of modern version scholars, the 2001 Holman Christian Standard Bible provides us with several quotes that exemplify the typical, pious sounding BALONEY promoted by those who do not believe IN FACT that any Bible is now the complete, inerrant and 100% true words of God.

    In the Introduction to the HCSB, the translators describe themselves as "a team of 100 scholars, editors, stylists, and proofreaders, ALL OF WHOM WERE COMMITTED TO BIBLICAL INERRANCY". They tell us: "The Bible IS God's inspired Word, inerrant IN THE ORIGINALS." They then tell us their goal is "to affirm the authority of Scripture as God's Word and to champion ITS ABSOLUTE TRUTH against social or cultural agendas that would compromise its accuracy", and that the HCSB "will be a standard in Bible translations FOR YEARS TO COME."

    Then they tell us: "Each generation NEEDS a fresh translation of the Bible in its own language" and that "each new generation must be introduced to God's Word in its own language...Translations made as recently as 10 or 20 years ago do not reflect many of these advances in biblical research."

    They inform us that their textual base for the New Testament is the Nestle-Aland 27th edition, and the Unitied Bible Societies' 4th corrected edition, but then they say: "At times, however, the translators have followed an alternative manuscript tradition, DISAGREEING with the editors of these texts ABOUT THE ORIGINAL READING."

    They go on to tell us: "In a few places in the N.T., large square brackets indicate texts that the HCSB translation team and most biblical scholars today believe WERE NOT PART OF THE ORIGINAL TEXT." They say they include them for "their undeniable antiquity" and their "value for tradition".

    These "few places in the N.T." include at least 39 entire verses that, by their own admission, "were not part of the original text"!!! Among these are Matthew 17:21; 18:11; 21:44; 23:14; Mark 7:16; 15:28; 16:9-20; Luke 17:36; 22:43-44; 23:17; John 5:3-4; 7:53-8:11; Acts 8:37; 24:6-7, 28:29, and Romans 16:24. Would you characterize 39 entire verses in the New Testament as "a few places"?

    First of all, it should be obvious that if only the originals were inspired and inerrant, and they no longer exist, and have never been seen by any of the HCSB translators, then how can they logically say The Bible IS inspired? Don't they really mean "Once upon a time, and far, far away, the Bible WAS inspired"?

    Secondly, if they are so committed to inerrancy and are "champions for absolute truth against any compromise with inaccuracy", then why do they include in their new version at least 39 entire verses that they don't think were "part of the original text"? These Scriptures are either inspired of God and belong in the Holy Bible, or they are spurious additions that have no place in any bible version at all.

    Thirdly, they reveal their "Every man for himself" X Files Bible mentality (the truth is out there somewhere) by telling us that they themselves disagree about the original reading with the scholars who put together the ever-changing UBS, Nestle-Aland critical texts. Those UBS scholars think certain readings are original, but the HSCB guys think that others are. And you can bet the next bible version to come down the pike will promote yet different readings as original; in fact, it is already happening in the TNIV and ISV.

    Fourthly, if the Holman Christian Standard Bible is "a standard for YEARS TO COME", then why do they also claim that EACH GENERATION NEEDS a new translation, or even one every 10 or 20 years "to reflect biblical research"? The shelf life of the modern bible versions isn't very long, is it? If the "scholars committed to inerrancy" finally produced an inerrant Bible, then they wouldn't need to keep churning out one new version after another, and they would be out of a job, wouldn't they?

    For further documented information about the Holman Standard, please see my article here:

    HolmanCSB - Another King James Bible Believer

    This same mentality of "every man for himself Bible Versions" is seen in Daniel Wallace's NET bible, the 2001 ESV (English Standard Version), the TNIV (Today's NIV) and in the New KJV as well.

    Luke 22:43-44 and Daniel Wallace's comments. "And there appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him. And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground."

    The hypocrisy of the modern versions is shown by how they deal with these two verses. They are found in the Majority of all texts including D, the Old Latin copies, Syriac Pe[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]ta, Curetonian, Harkelian, Palestinian, Armenian and Ethiopic ancient versions. Vaticanus omits all these words. Sinaiticus original contained all these words; then a scribe omitted them, and then another scribe put them back in again!

    Even though Vaticanus omits all these words, and the modern versions like the NASB, NIV, ESV omit thousands of words from the New Testament primarily because of the Vaticanus readings, yet the NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV,ISV and Holman (in brackets) include these two verses in their versions.

    Daniel Wallace's NET version also includes them, but in brackets, like the Holman Standard. He then reveals the mindset of many scholars today in his footnote. Mr. Wallace tells us: "Arguments can be given on both sides about whether scribes would tend to include or omit such comments about Jesus' humanity and an angel's help. But even if the verses are NOT LITERALLY AUTHENTIC, they are PROBABLY HISTORICALLY AUTHENTIC... Nevertheless, because of the SERIOUS DOUBTS as to these verses' authenticity, they have been put in brackets."

    So, in other words, even though God may not have inspired them, and they were later added by mere human hands, it may be OK to keep them in our bibles, but we should continue to call them into question!!!

    The 2001 ESV

    This revision of the revision of the Revised Standard Version refers in its Preface some 12 times to "the original text" as though it were something they actually had before them when making their new translation. They go on to tell us of "the currently renewed respect among Old Testament scholars for the Masoretic text". You see, the ESV has not rejected the Hebrew Scriptures QUITE AS MUCH as the older RSV and NRSV, BUT they still reject it dozens upon dozens of times, and not always in the same places as do the NASB and NIV.

    The ESV translators further tell us: "In exceptional, difficult cases (not true at all) the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Septuagint, the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Syriac Pe[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]ta, the Latin Vulgate, and other sources were consulted...to support a divergence from the Masoretic text. Similarly, in a few difficult cases (again, not true at all) in the New Testament, the ESV has followed A GREEK TEXT DIFFERENT FROM the text given by preference in the UBS/Nestle-Aland 27th edition."

    Actually, the ESV omits even more whole verses than the 17 the NIV omits, while the NASB omits fewer than the NIV, and none of these modern versions always follows the same Greek texts as the others all the way through any single book in the New Testament. Then the ESV editors conclude by telling us: "We know that NO Bible translation is perfect or final."

    For further documented information on the ESV, please see my article here: The ESV - Another King James Bible Believer

    The ESV, just as all the modern versions like the NKJV, NASB, RSV, and the NIV keep on changing their English text, and sometimes even the underlying Hebrew and Greek texts, from one edition to the next, and they do not let the reader know what changes they have made from one to the other. These “Now you see it, and now you don’t” fake bibles keep on changing all the time, and they have no settled text.

    Here are a few clear examples of the textual changes made in the ESV 2007 edition from what it read in the ESV 2001 edition. You can see a more complete list at this site here. They have changed over 350 verses that were found in the 2001 ESV edition.

    Changes made in the 2007 edition of the English Standard Version
    For clear and numerous examples of how the NASB continues to change its Hebrew, Greek, and English texts from one edition to the next, please see my article The Ever-Changing 'literal' NASB here: ever changing NASBs - Another King James Bible Believer

    The TNIV - an NIV revision and the NIV itself revised again in 2010

    The 2005 Today's NIV has now come on the scene and it differs both in texts and translation from the "old" NIV in many places. The TNIV editors tell us: "Today's New International Version (TNIV) is a revision of the NIV... There is a sense in which the work of translating the Bible is never finished... The chief goal of this review has always been to bring the text of the NIV ABREAST OF CONTEMPORARY BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP." So, I guess the old NIV is no longer "abreast of contemporary scholarship", right?

    The TNIV editors further inform us: "Already in 1978 and again in 1984 various CORRECTIONS AND REVISIONS TO THE NIV TEXT WERE MADE. And now in 2010 the NIV has once again been revised and they have changed about 10% of the verses from the way they read in the old NIV of 1984. In the TNIV the Committee offers to the reading public THE LATEST FRUITS of its review." Then the TNIV guys go through the now familiar spiel about "occasionally following the Dead Sea Scrolls, scribal traditions (whatever that means), emending (changing) the Hebrew text where it appears to have been corrupted" yada, yada, yada.

    The TNIV does not always follow even the same Greek or Hebrew texts used in the old NIV, but as they tell us: "The translators HAVE MADE THEIR CHOICES AMONG THE VARIANT READINGS." Some of their choices differ not only from the UBS/Nestle-Aland critical texts, but also from the previous NIVs in both the Old and New Testaments.

    The New KJV "Every man for himself" mentality

    Notice these words from the NEW KJV 1982 on page 1235: "It was the editors' conviction that the use of footnotes would encourage further inquiry by readers. THEY ALSO RECOGNIZED THAT IT WAS EASIER FOR THE AVERAGE READER TO DELETE SOMETHING HE OR SHE FELT WAS NOT PROPERLY A PART OF THE TEXT, than to insert a word or phrase which had been left out by the revisers."

    These footnotes in the NKJV generally have to do with the 3000 - 5000 words that have been omitted from the New Testament in such versions as the NIV, NASB, ESV. The NKJV editors are of the opinion that THE AVERAGE READER can DELETE something he FEELS is not part of the text.

    In contrast to the divergent, ever-changing, "Let's include verses even we don't think are authentic", every man for himself mindset of ALL modern versionists, the King James Bible believer actually believes God has providentially kept His promises to preserve His inerrant, complete and 100% true words in the BOOK OF THE LORD.

    "Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk therein." Jeremiah 6:16

    Will Kinney

    Return to Articles - articles - Another King James Bible Believer
     
    We teamed up with Faith Counseling. Can they help you today?
  2. CryptoLutheran

    CryptoLutheran Friendly Neighborhood Spiderman

    +352
    Christian
    Single
    Which KJV is the right one?

    The AV 1611, some variation of the 1611, or a variation of the standardized text of 1769? Here is a list of some of the differences between the 1611 and the 1769 (the 1769 being the text of what we call the King James Version today, though with some modifications and minor updates).

    Also, if the 1611 is the proper text which is "the complete, inerrant 100% word of God" does that include the Apocrypha which the 1611 contained?

    If the 1769, does that include the Apocrypha as well? It was also contained in the original printings of the 1769 standard text.

    Which is, I guess to ask, do you accept Tobit and 1 Maccabees as inspired? If not, why not? If it was good enough for God's Official Version of 1611 and/or 1769, shouldn't it be good enough for you?

    Your answers would be most helpful. Thank you.

    -CryptoLutheran
     
  3. ebia

    ebia Senior Contributor

    +1,985
    Anglican
    Married
    AU-Greens
    You worry about which English bible to worship; the rest of us will concern ourselves with the one to whom all the translations point.
     
  4. brandplucked

    brandplucked Member Supporter

    769
    +15
    Christian
    Hi Crypto, Golly. I've never heard this one before. Now you've really got me stumped;)

    So, is it your argument that since the King James Bible has had a few printing errors corrected and changed from Gothic type to Roman type then this proves your belief that there is not now nor has there ever been a complete and infallible Bible? Is that your point?

    Your whole argument is what I call the "Printing Errors Ploy". It is a non-issue and a smokescreen for your basic unbelief. You might want to educate yourself a bit more.

    Please see - http://brandplucked.web.com/printingerrors.htm

    The King James Bible has never been revised. The underlying Hebrew and Greek texts have never changed. This is in sharp contrast to all your modern versions like the NASB, NIV, ESV, NKJV that not only keep deliberately changing their English texts but also their underlying Greek and Hebrew texts.



    Again, Crypto, you would do well to learn more about this totally hypocritical argument by seeing where your modern versions come from and who else includes the Apocrypha.

    Please see - Apocrypha KJB - Another King James Bible Believer

    So, are you willing to admit that you yourself do not believe that any Bible in any language is the complete and infallible words of God?

    Your answers would be most helpful. Thank you.

    Will Kinney
     
  5. brandplucked

    brandplucked Member Supporter

    769
    +15
    Christian

    Hi ebia. Well, first of all, I don't know of any King James Bible believer who worships the Bible. I for one have no altar with incense and candles burning before my Bible. I write in the margins, underline verses and have spilled coffee on it. I sometimes forget where I put it. But I DO believe it is God's infallible words. Do you have such a Book? No? I'm sorry to hear about that.

    Among your various Bible Babble Buffet version that "point" you to the one you seem so concerned about, is He the one who has origins as the ESV, RSV, NIV teach in Micah 5:2? Or is He the one who lied in John 7:8-10 in the nasb by saying He wasn't going to the feast and then He did? Or is He whom the children of Israel DECEIVED as your NASB teaches in Psalm 78:36? Was your God deceived by mortal men? Is he one of the two Gods many of your modern versions refer to in John 1:18?

    It is a simple fact that most Christians today do not believe ANY Bible is the infallible words of God, so at what point does the one your multiple choice non-inspired conflicting versions start to tell the truth about this one they point to?

    So, since you yourself do not believe such a thing exists as a complete and infallible Bible, you accuse those who do of "worshiping" it. I guess you have to excuse and justify your unbelief somehow, huh.

    "He that hath ears to hear, let him hear."

    Will Kinney
     
  6. ebia

    ebia Senior Contributor

    +1,985
    Anglican
    Married
    AU-Greens
    God's "infallible" word was delivered in Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic manuscripts that we no longer perfectly have. What we have is so close as to be reliable using any quality translation since what we are interested in is not the bible itself but the one to whom it points.

    When you become preoccupied as you are with claiming divine authority for the text of one particular version and start using the language that goes with that, yes you are idolising that text. Not necessarily the physical volume, but the text.

    You see you are confusing the textual description with the one the text is talking about - the differences you describe are in the texts, not the one they are pointing to. They arise because we have no perfect manuscripts of the original, and because there is no perfect way of translating between two languages. And by worrying about that in the way you are, you are putting one English text in place of God himself.

    My faith is in Jesus Christ and his resurrection. If you think we are saved by faith in an English text that just shows what I've been saying.
     
  7. brandplucked

    brandplucked Member Supporter

    769
    +15
    Christian
    Hi ebia. Perhaps you are in need of the obvious being pointed out to you. We know absolutely nothing about the true God, Who He is, what He has done for us in Christ and the lost condition of man, the resurrection of the just and the unjust, and innumerable other Biblical truths except what He has been pleased to reveal to us in His Book.

    All we can know from creation is that there is a God, but Who He is, what He is like and how we can be forgiven and made His people to escape the wrath to come (even that there is wrath to come) can only be known from the words of truth in the Bible.

    Otherwise you are off into cloud land mysticism and can only conceive of you imaginary god through the vain imaginations and fancy of your sin darkened mind. Now that is idolatry.

    Helooooo? Is anybody home? The only way we can objectively know Who God is, is from the very TEXT He has given us. Your fake bibles all confuse sound doctrine and often teach flat out lies about Who God is and what He has done. God cannot be deceived as some of your bogus bibles teach in their texts. The Lord Jesus Christ did not have an origin, as many of them teach. There was not a certain day when God became the Father of Christ as your fake NIV, ESV, NET teach in Acts 13:33. That verse is talking about the resurrection of Christ, not God becoming His Father.

    It is a simple fact that fewer and fewer Christians believe in the Infallibility of the Bible (any bible) and they read these modern, conflicting and contradictory versions less and less. More and more nominal Christians are going the way of mysticism and subjective experiences, instead of believing in the God Scripture reveals. You seem to be well on you way down this road to eventual full blown apostasy.

    You have already abandoned faith in the Infallibility of Scripture, and now just pick out parts and portions that appeal to your natural man sense of who "God" might be, but nothing is set in stone and all can change with the next wind of fancy to catch your imagination.

    Those, like you, who criticize the King James Bible have nothing to replace it with but your own admissions of unbelief when you tell us that No Bible is perfect, No text is perfect and imply that the Bible really isn't all that important anyway = pure mysticism.

    May God have mercy on more of His people and open their eyes and give them the faith to believe "the book of the LORD".

    Will Kinney
     
  8. papaJP

    papaJP Prophet

    493
    +22
    Christian
    Married
    US-Others
    It is a simple fact that most Christians today do not believe ANY Bible is the infallible words of God, so at what point does the one your multiple choice non-inspired conflicting versions start to tell the truth about this one they point to?
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    What is wrong with this post? You make gereral statements that are based on incomplete and incorrect assumptions.
    What you say is most christians. What is incorrect is that most who call themselves are not true Christians they are nominal (in name only). You seem to want to attack all who claim to believe. However, you may be one of those who do not believe. I can only judge believers by their fruits and I do not see many on your tree.
    I hope you will seek the truth and let God have control of your life.
    The Holy Bible is the Word of God and all the nitpicking of translated words is the type of wrangling Paul warned against.
     
  9. Hentenza

    Hentenza I will fear no evil for You are with me

    +3,227
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Republican
    The bible has been translated to 2400 different languages and more are to come as more unreached peoples are reached. To bad for them that they will have to learn outdated Elizabethan English in order to read the "word" of God. The argument that only the KJV is infallible is absurd.
     
  10. brandplucked

    brandplucked Member Supporter

    769
    +15
    Christian
    Hi papaJP, No, it is a fact that most Christians (real Christians ) do not believe that ANY Bible in any language is the complete and 100% true words of God. I assume you are a Christian. Do you have an infallible Bible in any language? Yes, No, I dunno or Who cares?

    Maybe you and the next poster can tell us which of these various versions is the infallible words of God. Care to take a stab at it?

    IF you really believe there exists a complete and infallible Bible, where can we get of copy of this infallible Bible you claim to believe in so we can read it to see the differences and similarities to what we are reading now.

    Is it any of these?

    “MEANINGLESS and PICKY DETAILS”?

    The following short list is just a sampling of the divergent and confusing readings found among the contradictory modern bible versions. There are numerous other examples. Among these “details” are whether Jeremiah 27:1 reads Jehoiakim (Hebrew texts, RV, ASV, NKJV, KJB) or Zedekiah (RSV, NIV, NASB, ESV, NET, Holman); whether 2 Samuel 21:8 reads Michal (Hebrew texts, KJB, NKJV, RV, ASV) or Merab (RSV, NIV, NASB, ESV, NET, Holman), or 70 (NASB, NKJV, RV, ASV, RSV, NRSV, Holman, KJB) being sent out by the Lord Jesus in Luke 10:1 and 10:17 or 72 (NIV, ESV, NET), or in Matthew 18:22 does the Lord say to forgive your brother not “until 7 times, but unto 70 times 7 times” (= 490 times - RV, ASV, NASB, NKJV, RSV, ESV, ALL Greek texts) or 77 times (NRSV, NIV), or the 7th day in Judges 14:15 (KJB, NKJV, RV, ASV) or the 4th day (RSV, ESV, NASB, NIV, NET, Holman), or God smiting 50,070 men in 1 Samuel 6:19 (KJB, RV, ASV, NASB, NET) or 70 men slain (RSV, NIV, NRSV, ESV), or “70 men- 50 chief men” (Young’s), or “70 MEN OUT OF 50,000 Holman Standard, or there being 30,000 chariots in 1 Samuel 13:5 (KJB, NKJV, RV, ASV, NASB, RSV, NRSV, ESV) or only 3000 (NIV, NET, Holman), or 1 Samuel 13:1 reading - ONE/TWO years (NKJV, KJB, Geneva, Judaica Press Tanach), or 40/32 (NASB 1972-77) or 30/42 (NASB 1995, NIV, Holman), OR 30 years/ 40 years (NET) or _____years and.______and two years (RSV, NRSV, ESV), or even “32 years old...reigned for 22 years” in the 1989 Revised English Bible!; 2 Samuel 15:7 “forty years” (Hebrew, Geneva, NKJV, NASB, RV) OR “four years” (NIV,RSV, ESV, NET), or whether both 2 Samuel 23:18 and 1 Chronicles 11:20 read “chief of the THREE” (Hebrew texts, RV, ASV, NKJV, NRSV, Holman, NIV, NET, Holman, NET) or THIRTY from the Syriac (NASB, RSV, ESV), or 2 Samuel 24:13 reading SEVEN years (Hebrew, ASV, NASB, NKJV, NET) or THREE years (LXX, NIV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, Holman), or whether 1 Kings 4:26 reads 40,000 stalls of horses (Hebrew, RV, ASV, NASB, ESV, NKJV, Holman) or 4,000 stalls (NIV, NET) or whether 1 Kings 5:11 reads 20 measures of pure oil (Hebrew texts, Geneva, KJB, ASV, RV, NASB, NRSV) or 20,000 (RSV, NIV, ESV, NET, LXX and Syriac) or 110,000 gallons (Holman) or in 2 Chronicles 31:16 we read THREE years old (Hebrew texts, Geneva Bible, Wycliffe, LXX, Syriac, RV, ASV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, NIV, NKJV, Holman, NET) or THIRTY years old (NASB - ft. Hebrew “three”) or where 2 Chronicles 36:9 reads that Jehoiachin was 8 years old when he began to reign (Hebrew texts, NASB, NKJV, RV, ASV, KJB, RSV, NRSV ESV 2001 edition) or he was 18 years old (NIV, Holman, NET, ESV 2007 edition), or that when God raised the Lord Jesus from the dead it is stated in Acts 13:33 “this day have I begotten thee” (KJB, NASB, NKJV, RV, RSV, NRSV, ESV) or “today I have become your Father” (NIV, Holman, NET).

    All modern bible versions like the NIV, NASB, RSV, ESV, NET, Holman Standard,etc. often reject the clear Hebrew readings and not even in the same places. These are undeniable facts. Here are many examples:

    NIV, NASB reject Hebrew - Another King James Bible Believer

    NIV,NASB reject Hebrew2 - Another King James Bible Believer
     
  11. CryptoLutheran

    CryptoLutheran Friendly Neighborhood Spiderman

    +352
    Christian
    Single
    My faith isn't in a text, but in a Person. Jesus Christ.

    Scripture doesn't have to be immaculately perfect in every excruciating detail and minutia to do its job in pointing toward Christ, the Word of God made flesh.

    -CryptoLutheran
     
  12. brandplucked

    brandplucked Member Supporter

    769
    +15
    Christian

    Hi Hentenza. You are confusing two very different things. The gospel of salvation through faith in the substitutionary death, burial and resurrection of Christ is found in any bible version out there, including the JW version and all Catholic versions. The gospel can be found in song and in short and simple gospel tracts. God can and does save His people through the gospel in many different languages. No King James Bible believer I know of disputes that.

    However, when it comes to whether or not there really exists such a thing as a complete, preserved, inspired and 100% historically and doctrinally true Bible in any language, the vast majority of real Christians today do not believe such a thing exists and their faith is weakened as a result of this unbelief.

    YOU your self do not believe that any Bible is the final Standard of written Authority from God, do you?

    If so, then take the list I just posted (which are only a few of the hundreds of examples I can show you) and tell us if your infallible bible is found among all those conflicting readings.

    Or do you just like the philosophical concept of an infallible Bible but utterly lack the tangible reality of it? (rhetorical question)

    People are actually reading these modern, contradictory, watered down and confusing versions less and less. Now the 2010 NIV has come out and it has changed about 10% of the verses that were in the 1984 NIV. The NIV has now changed just one verse - John 1:18 - THREE different times, and this latest one doesn't follow any known Greek reading anywhere in the world. But modern Christianity is gullible enough to give 'em their money and wait for the next "late$t and be$t in $cholar$hip" to come down the pike.

    Well, my King James Bible may be a little antiquated with all those more accurate Thee's and ye's, but it is the 100% true words of God and these new bogus bibles versions that continue to change every few years are not.

    I'll stick with God's Book and allow the bible agnostics to have theirs.

    Will K
     
  13. brandplucked

    brandplucked Member Supporter

    769
    +15
    Christian

    Hi Crypto. I actually agree totally with your second statement. That is why you can use your fake bibles and still come to know the Lord Jesus Christ as your Saviour. However when you at the same time doubt the words inspired and spoken by this same Lord Jesus Christ, then I have to wonder just how strong your faith in Him really is.

    But that is between you and God. So, keep on using bible texts you don't fully believe if you want to. I prefer by grace to believe that the Lord Jesus really meant what He said when He said heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

    Case in point. Did the Lord Jesus say "For thine is the kingdom, and the power and the glory, for ever. Amen" in Matthew 6:13 or not? He either did and these words belong in the Bible or He didn't and they should not be there.


    Will K
     
  14. Hentenza

    Hentenza I will fear no evil for You are with me

    +3,227
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Republican
    The KJV has errors. All copies have errors. Only the autographs are 100% free of error.

    Here is just one example of a historical error in the KJV.

    2 Kings 23:29
    29In his days Pharaoh Nechoh king of Egypt went up against the king of Assyria.............(bold mine)

    The King of Assyria (Ashur-uballit II) and Pharaoh Necho II were allies not enemies.
     
  15. brandplucked

    brandplucked Member Supporter

    769
    +15
    Christian
    Hi Hentenza. You (perhaps unwittingly) just confirmed what most Christians today actually believe about "The Bible" - "All copies have errors. ONLY the autographs ARE 100% free of error".

    Well done. You use a present tense verb "are" to describe the long lost and never seen by you or anyone else living today originals and tell us that they ARE your final authority. The originals never did make up the 66 book Bible and they simply do not exist.

    So, in other words, you are affirming your faith in something that you KNOW does not exist, and claim that all bibles that DO exist have errors in them and are therefore not the infallible words of God.

    I couldn't have expressed the widespread unbelief in the Infallibility of Scripture most Christians today have better than you just did.

    As for the really weird example you give of alleged error in 2 Kings 23:29 where the king of Egypt came up against the king of Assyria (though the fake bibles like the NASB, NIV, ESV, NKJV change the reading) agreeing with the KJB are Coverdale, Bishops' Bible, the Geneva Bible, the Revised Version, American Standard Version, the Hebrew translations of JPS 1917, Hebrew Names Version, Darby, Youngs, Bible in Basic English and the Third Millenium Bible, to name just a few.

    Take a look at the cross reference of 2 Chronicles 35:21-22 or read the commentaries of John Gill, Jamieson, Fauccet and Brown, or Matthew Henry to see why the King James Bible is right.

    Of all the alleged "errors" brought up against the KJB, this has got to be one of the silliest.

    Anyway, thank you for expressing so well the widespread unbelief in the infallibility of Scripture that is common today in the Christian church.

    Will Kinney
     
  16. laconicstudent

    laconicstudent Well-Known Member

    +655
    Christian Seeker
    Private
    US-Democrat
    Is this a "The KJV-dropped-out-of-the-sky-in-bonded-leather-after-Christ's-ascension" thread?
     
  17. Hentenza

    Hentenza I will fear no evil for You are with me

    +3,227
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Republican
    Will, I believe in plenary verbal inspiration so you are off the mark. The clerical errors that exists in copies do not in any way affect doctrine. We have 100% of the message.

    BTW- This is not a silly error but one where the writers of the KJV did not have the correct information and assumed. All archaeological evidence supports that Egypt and Assyria where allys against Babylon.

    Here is an example of poor sentence construction by the KJV writers that has led some to a false doctrine.

    Matt. 26:27
    27And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; (bold mine).

    The grammar in this verse does not support the KJV's rendition that one must finish every drop in the communion cup but that all should drink from it. The word for all (πάντες) agrees both in number (plural) and case (nominative) with the word you (πίετε), but it differs in both number and case with the word it (αὐτοῦ), therefore, "all" refers to the people whom Christ is addressing not to the contents of the cup.
     
  18. brandplucked

    brandplucked Member Supporter

    769
    +15
    Christian
    Hi Hentenze. Thanks for writing back. You say you believe in plenary verbal inspiration. Great! Do you know what that means? It means complete words inspiration. So far you have not even told us what "your" translation is. Can you tell us? Do you believe your translation is completely inspired in all the words it contains? That is what 'plenary verbal inspiration' means.

    Obviously you have already eliminated the King James Bible from your list of infallible bibles because you think it has errors in it. So, please tell us where we can get one of your "plenary verbal inspired" bibles, OK? Thanks.


    Now to address your other point. You say: "BTW- This is not a silly error but one where the writers of the KJV did not have the correct information and assumed. All archaeological evidence supports that Egypt and Assyria where allys against Babylon."

    Sister, it looks like you did not take my advice and refer to those Bible commentaries I suggested. There is not error in the King James Bible. Here is why. You must be reading too much Al Maxey, another NIV user, who does not believe that any Bible is the infallible words of God.

    Necho against Assyria

    2 Kings 23:29 "IN HIS DAYS Pharaoh-nechoh king of Egypt went up AGAINST the king of Assyria to the river Euphrates: and king Josiah went against him; and he slew him at Megiddo, when he had seen him."

    Mr. Maxey uses the NIV and it says: "WHILE JOSIAH WAS KING, Pharaoh Neco king of Egypt went up to the Euphrates River TO HELP the king of Assyria. King Josiah marched out to meet him in battle, but NECO (not in text) faced him and killed him at Megiddo."

    No text says with the NIV "while Josiah was king". This is a paraphrase. Even the NASB says "in his days". However the NASB says Pharoah Neco went up TO the king, but the NKJV joins the NIV and says: "In his days Pharoah Neco went TO THE AID of the king of Assyria." There is no Hebrew text that says "to the aid of" or "to help".

    Those versions that read along with the KJB that "in his days Pharoah Necho went up AGAINST the king of Assyria" are both Jewish translations of 1917, 1936, Wycliffe 1395, Miles Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549, the Bishop's Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, Brenton Translation 1851, Lesser Bible 1853, the Revised Version 1885, American Standard Version 1901, Rotherham's Emphasized bible 1902, Hebrew Names Version, the 1998 Complete Jewish Bible, Young's, Darby, Douay 1950, Luther's German Bible 1545, the Spanish Reina Valera 1909, 1960, and the 1997 La Biblia de las Américas - "En aquellos días Faraón Nechâo rey de Egipto subió contra el rey de Asiria al río Eufrates", the French Martin 1744, Louis Segond 1910, French Ostervald 1996, and the French La Bible du Semeur 1997 - "De son temps, Pharaon Néco, roi d'Égypte, monta contre le roi d'Assyrie", the Italian Diodati 1649 and the New Diodati 1991 - "Durante il suo regno, il Faraone Neko, re d'Egitto, salí contro il re di Assiria sul fiume Eufrate.", the Portuguese Almeida - "rei do Egito, contra o rei da Assíria", the KJV 21st Century 1994, Third Millenium Bible 1998, 1961 Bible in Basic English, and Green's 1984 interlinear.

    As we shall shortly see, Mr. Maxey confuses the king of Assyria with the king of Babylon, who was referred to as the king of Assyria after he conquered it.

    John Wesley notes:

    The king- The king of Babylon, who having formerly rebelled against the Assyrian had now conquered him; as appears by the course of the sacred, and the concurrence of the profane history; and therefore is here and elsewhere called the Assyrian, and the king of Assyria, because now he was the head of that empire.

    The 1982 edition of The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge also confirms this view that the king of Babylon, having conquered Assyria, was then called the king of Assyria.

    John Gill

    In his days Pharaohnechoh king of Egypt went up against the king of Assyria to the river Euphrates; to Carchemish, a city situated upon it; see2 Chronicles 35:20, the king he went against was the king of Babylon, who had conquered the Assyrian monarchy, and therefore called king of it.

    Matthew Henry

    "The king of Egypt waged war, it seems, with the king of Assyria: so the king of Babylon is now called. Josiah's kingdom lay between them. He therefore thought himself concerned to oppose the king of Egypt, and check the growing, threatening, greatness of his power; for though, at this time, he protested that he had no design against Josiah, yet, if he should prevail to unite the river of Egypt and the river Euphrates, the land of Judah would soon be overflowed between them. Therefore Josiah went against him, and was killed in the first engagement."

    In any event, Mr. Maxey and his NIV, and the NKJV are certainly wrong and the King James Bible is correct, as always.

    Will Kinney
     
  19. Bear.Fr00t

    Bear.Fr00t Fruit Inspector

    622
    +35
    Baptist
    Married
    brandplucked, when and where has God spoken and declared the KJV to be His divinely appointed English transation?
     
  20. Hentenza

    Hentenza I will fear no evil for You are with me

    +3,227
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Republican
    Yes, I know what plenary verbal inspiration is. I use several translations but prefer the Greek.

    I have eliminated all of them since all are copies. Man is not inerrant.


    You misunderstand the application of plenary verbal inspiration. I have already stated that, although there are errors in our translations, none of these errors affect doctrine. Most of the errors are numerical or clerical (symbols). I can use any literal translation, compare it to the original Greek or Hebrew, and study each word of the original inspired text.


    1. I am not a sister.
    2. I don't use the NIV nor have I ever read Al Maxey.
    3. There are many errors in the KJV.



    There is no Hebrew text that says "against" either. The Hebrew לִקְרָאתֹ֔ו occurs only one time in that verse and it is on the second part of the verse related to King Josiah. All translations that have either "against", "to the aid", "to help", etc. have added their own spin to the scriptures since the Hebrew does not contain it. The job of the translator is to translate not to guess.

    You might want to consider going outside of the commentaries and studying the history and the grammar independently. Ashur-uballit II was the last King of Assyria and ruled from Harran after the destruction of Nineveh by the Babylonians. In 609bc he was able to hold back Babylon from plundering Harran because he had the help of the Egyptian army. King Josiah aligned himself with Babylon and was killed by Necho when trying to block Necho from advancing. After Josiah's death Necho and Ashur-uballit II attempted to defend Harran from the Babylonians but lost. The Egyptian army then retreated to Syria.

    BTW- You didn't address the second part of my post to you. Here it is again.

    Here is an example of poor sentence construction by the KJV writers that has led some to a false doctrine.

    Matt. 26:27
    27And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; (bold mine).

    The grammar in this verse does not support the KJV's rendition that one must finish every drop in the communion cup but that all should drink from it. The word for all (πάντες) agrees both in number (plural) and case (nominative) with the word you (πίετε), but it differs in both number and case with the word it (αὐτοῦ), therefore, "all" refers to the people whom Christ is addressing not to the contents of the cup.
     
    Last edited: Jan 9, 2011
Loading...